MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Queen's 80th Birthday

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to a Loyal and Dutiful Address from this House, as follows: It gives me great pleasure to receive the cordial congratulations of your House on the occasion of my eightieth birthday, together with your expression of appreciation, and your warm good wishes for my long continuing health and happiness. I send my warmest thanks to you.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Council Support

John Mann: How many councils have received support under (a) Vital Villages, (b) the quality parish scheme and (c) the market towns initiative since 2001.

Jim Knight: Since  2001, Vital Villages has helped more than 5,000 communities gain access to more or higher standards of public services—an agenda further supported by more than 270 quality parish and town councils. More than 230 towns received funding through the market towns initiative to support community-led regeneration.

John Mann: The image of market towns is often that of the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker and, in particular, many solicitors doing business. However, there is another kind of market town: small towns that have been built up and surrounded by the coal industry over the past 100 years. Those market towns have particular problems in regenerating themselves. Will the Minister look at market towns such as Warsop to see whether beacon status could be conferred on them to assist with their regeneration?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could manage an Adjournment debate—he has so much to tell us.

Jim Knight: As I ever, I listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) with care. I take note of his comments and will consider them in due course.

Tony Baldry: Will the Minister explain to the House why his Department, rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is taking these initiatives forward? Will he also explain to the House how the initiatives are promulgated? How do parish councils, town councils and others know that the money is available to them? Rather than having all those various initiatives, which people have to know about, would it not be better if the Government simply increased the grant to local authorities in relation to council tax, rather than reducing the grant and obliging council tax to go up continually?

Jim Knight: It is clearly appropriate that the Minister with responsibility for rural affairs should have some input into what is going on in rural communities. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is involved, as well as the ODPM. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that we have simplified the arrangements for Vital Villages and the market towns initiative, for example, by contributing all that money to the regional development agencies—as a Department, we are now the third largest contributor to the regional development agencies—so that they can make more localised decisions in the interests of rural communities.

Andrew Miller: I welcome the market towns initiative, which has gone down extremely well in Neston in my constituency. It can provide a vehicle to improve the centre of a town radically. What efforts is my hon. Friend making to liaise with other key Departments to ensure that there is a holistic approach, particularly with transport and other such key factors?

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and interested to hear about Neston; Swanage, in my constituency, is benefiting from market and coastal towns initiative funding. I regularly meet colleagues from other Departments, and in the next few weeks I am due to meet the Minister of State at the Department for Transport. I will have my hon. Friend's comments in mind.

James Gray: Does the Minister agree that one of the best bits of the Vital Villages funding was the regard given to local transport issues, and transport issues more widely? Does he further agree that one of the biggest problems in our villages today is the increasing clutter caused by traffic calming measures, street furniture of one sort or another, signs and signage? It is almost impossible to see where the village is because of the ghastly mess on the roads. How will the Minister seek to reduce that clutter now that he has cancelled the Vital Villages funding?

Jim Knight: We have not cancelled the Vital Villages funding. We have passed it on to the regional development agencies to spend as they see fit within their region—in the spirit of delegation that I know that the hon. Gentleman's party is now welcoming. As for the signs and the clutter, as he calls it, many villages are clamouring for traffic calming, and I am sure that there may be some such villages in North Wiltshire. However, the Department for Transport is concerned about the proliferation of signage and there is some work going on with highways authorities to consider how that can be simplified for the motorist, to make sure that there is not a confusion of signage causing a hazard on the roads.

Right to Roam

Angela Smith: If she will make a statement on progress in implementing the right to roam provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Jim Knight: The target for implementing the Countryside and Rights of Way Act right of access in England by the end of 2005 has been met, enabling people to enjoy some of the finest landscape that the country has to offer.

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We are all aware that ramblers everywhere welcome the right to roam provisions warmly, but the Minister will also be aware that many ramblers would like an extension of the right to roam to cover Britain's wonderful coastline. Are there any plans to extend the access provisions of the CROW Act? [Interruption.]

Jim Knight: I can hear someone saying that there is a wonderful coastline in my constituency, and I cannot argue with that. Improving coastal access was a manifesto commitment. We are committed to full public consultation in October, when we will set out our views on how we can best deliver action to improve access to the English coast.

Bovine TB

David Jones: How many incidents of bovine tuberculosis were reported to her Department in the last 12 months.

Ben Bradshaw: Some 3,653 new herd incidents were recorded in Great Britain in 2005. That was a 9.1 per cent. increase on 2004.

David Jones: As the current bovine TB skin test is a rather blunt diagnostic tool with only a 60 to 70 per cent. degree of accuracy, when does the Minister anticipate that the working group that he established in September 2005 will be able to report on the increased use of the gamma interferon test?

Ben Bradshaw: The figures that the hon. Gentleman gives the House are not quite correct. The skin test's sensitivity, which is its identification of infected animals, is between 77 and 95 per cent. Its specificity, which is its identification of uninfected animals, is 99 per cent. The test is much better than he suggests, and it is recognised internationally, as it is in the EU. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have set up a working group to look into rolling out the gamma interferon test, but that test could only ever be used as a supplementary test, although I agree that it has the potential to be helpful.

David Drew: With the number of cases of bovine TB continuing to rise, which is deeply worrying, will my hon. Friend assure me that no decision has been taken on how the Government intend to respond to their consultation, given that there is a clear need to examine alternatives, including vaccination and the idea of mineral deficiency? We must rely on science, not several of the ideas that are floating around.

Ben Bradshaw: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. The consultation was important. We received tens of thousands of responses, so I do not think that anyone would think it reasonable to expect us to reach a decision within five weeks of the end of the consultation period, given the scientific uncertainty to which he alludes.

William McCrea: Will the Minister tell the House whether herds that have had, or are suspected to have had, a tuberculosis outbreak in the past three years will be restricted from exporting live animals when the beef export ban is lifted in early May?

Ben Bradshaw: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact answer to that question, but I think that I am right in saying that because our status is officially still TB-free, our export markets will not be affected.

Eric Martlew: With regard to the consultation, is the Minister aware that there is growing opposition among major landowners, such as the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to the possibility of a major cull of badgers, because they believe that the science does not justify any sort of cull whatever? Will he need legislation to be able to go on to such property to cull badgers if that is the final, and unfortunate, decision?

Ben Bradshaw: I am on record as saying that I do not think that it is practicable to have any sort of culling system that involves enforcement when landowners do not want badgers to be culled on their land. That would not be a feasible option—but my hon. Friend's point about landowners is absolutely right. One of the problems with getting widespread and intensive coverage for our badger culling trials is that a number of landowners do not want such culling to happen as a matter of principle, although that might not necessarily be the case in all areas. My hon. Friend is right to imply that if there is to be badger culling as part of our bovine TB policy, all the scientific evidence, which, as he rightly says, is uncertain, tends to suggest that it would need fairly widespread coverage over a very large area, which would be a challenge to achieve.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister half answered this question when he replied to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), but we want to know when the Government will announce their decision about what they will do following the consultation on badger culling. Does he think that we should accept a level of TB in wildlife?

Ben Bradshaw: As I have said before, and as the consultation document said, the international experience suggests that if we leave the reservoir in wildlife untouched it will prevent us from containing and eradicating bovine TB. We have made that perfectly clear, but we face a challenge in finalising a practicable cost-effective system of culling that is scientifically sustainable in the long term. As for timing, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer, but we wish to proceed as quickly as possible, given the seriousness of the situation.

David Taylor: Is the Minister convinced that the new compensation scheme for affected cattle is an adequate reflection of farmers' losses? A farming family in my constituency have put the alternative case to me very vigorously, as they say that there is a significant risk that beef and milk production—the engine room of English agriculture—will be seriously affected, and that some farmers will stop milk production altogether without adequate compensation.

Ben Bradshaw: It is early days, as the new compensation system has been operating for only a short time. I remind my hon. Friend that reports by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, as well as a number of independent reports, have  repeatedly found that there was serious overcompensation in the system, and the Government have a responsibility to defend taxpayers' interests as well as to compensate farmers for the true value of the animals that are slaughtered.

Single Payments Scheme

Mark Lancaster: If she will make a statement on progress in making payments under the single payments scheme.

Margaret Beckett: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written statement given to the House yesterday.

Mark Lancaster: I wrote to the Minister on 4 April giving her notice that I wanted to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Arthur Adams, who is typical of farmers across the country who have had to sell their grain early at a loss, whose rent was due last month, and who simply cannot afford to buy the chemicals that they desperately need now that spring is here. All of them have one thing common—they still have not been paid. All that I want to know—all that farmers across the land want to know—is when they will be paid.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for writing to me, as that provided me with an opportunity to look at his constituent's case, which is not the norm. I am afraid that some validation tasks remain outstanding in that claim, but we hope that they will be completed as soon as possible. I remind the hon. Gentleman that of course there is, and always has been, a payment window. It was never the case that we hoped or believed that everyone could be paid at the start. Payments are being made as fast as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is aware that Scotland and Wales have managed to ensure that farmers are paid, but farmers in Lancashire are struggling without the single farm payment. Can she ensure that it will be paid as soon as possible? If not, can she guarantee that interim payments will be made, and that farmers will be compensated for the delay?

Margaret Beckett: First, I remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that the payment is not late, as the payment window does not close until the end of June. May I also draw to his attention, and to that of the whole House, our announcement yesterday that because of continuing concern about the rate at which the Rural Payments Agency can make payments, we have made work on a system of substantial partial payments a priority?

Maria Miller: A great many farmers in my constituency in north Hampshire are also waiting for payment under the scheme, and it is causing a great deal of hardship, particularly among smaller farmers. Many of the provisional acceptances received by those farmers are littered with errors—for example, with regard to field boundaries. One of the farmers in my constituency has been given an entitlement for a type of land that does not even exist in north Hampshire. What is the Minister doing to deal with those problems? Does she agree with the statement by a farmer in my constituency that the IT system is in meltdown?

Margaret Beckett: No, the IT system is not in meltdown, but there are continuing problems. The hon. Lady is probably not aware that since September 2004 there have been no less than 100,000 requests for new land to be registered or for changes to be made to the boundaries of land that had in many cases long been registered with the payments system. Indeed, 61,000 changes in registration have been made in the past five months alone. That is a substantial task. It is a substantially greater task than anyone had anticipated when the system was put in hand. That has caused difficulties, but I can assure the hon. Lady both that attempts are being made to resolve those as fast as possible, and that if there are difficulties with the specific information given to a particular farmer, we are trying to encourage contact between that farmer and the Rural Payments Agency.

Andy Reed: I welcome the statement yesterday. In meetings with my farmers recently, they highlighted the genuine concern that many of them have, particularly the smaller farmers, who are finding it difficult to maintain their cash flow. When does my right hon. Friend expect progress to be made under the timetable for improvements to IT? Would it be possible for the RPA to ensure that farmers dealt with a specific individual? One of the problems seems to be that when they phone, they have to go through the whole history all over again. Perhaps we should learn from other agencies, where specific case officers are assigned.

Margaret Beckett: First, it is our intention that all those who are eligible will receive full or substantial partial payments by the end of June. The second point that my hon. Friend makes is a valid and important one. Among the changes that have been brought in by the acting chief executive is a major overhaul of the way in which claims are processed, which gives staff responsibility for individual applications. I understand that previously, not only was there a system whereby staff had responsibility for individual tasks, but the staff involved in dealing with the tasks relating to particular claims were not the staff who were allowed to talk to customers. That is one of the first changes that our new acting chief executive has introduced. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's observations, in case the further point that he makes is helpful.

Angus MacNeil: There seems to be a misconception. It is not just in England and Wales that there are problems with single farm payments. Some crofters in my constituency—I declare an interest here—have still to get their single farm payments, although those will be modest sums compared with payments to farmers in England and Wales. Will the Minister give an assurance that, perhaps with the Scottish Executive, she will look into the systemic problems connected with the single farm payments system?

Margaret Beckett: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations. It was also my understanding that although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said earlier, there is a different system in the devolved Administrations and most of the farmers had been paid, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, not all had been paid. As he will appreciate, I do not have responsibility for the way that payments are made in the devolved Administrations, but I undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of those who do.

John Penrose: One of my farmers recently tried to take the Secretary of State to court by issuing a summons for her in the Weston-super-Mare small claims court. The right hon. Lady will doubtless be sad to hear that she has been deprived of the opportunity of coming to visit the beautiful town of Weston-super-Mare because of a legal technicality—but does she agree that that farmer, Paul Bateman, typifies the frustration felt by farmers across the country, particularly when he received a letter from the Rural Payments Agency telling him exactly how much he was owed in euros, but no cheque was enclosed with the letter? Would it not have been simple for someone to have signed a cheque, put it in with the letter and got that one out of the way immediately?

Margaret Beckett: No. We are doing everything we can to speed up the payments system. On the validation of claims, identifying the amount is the first step, but I recognise that it is the cheque that really matters. Far more cheques are being issued, and that work will continue. As I have said, our top priority is a system that at least involves substantial partial payments.

Michael Jack: Uncertainty is the politest word to describe the mess which is the RPA. Applicants who have not had this year's claim validated now face a four-week time window before next year's payment application must be made. How can someone apply for help from 2007 onwards with certainty, when they do not know whether they have made a clear application for the current payment?

Margaret Beckett: Whether or not someone has a clear application for this year does not affect the need for people to get in information for 2006. Alongside the work that is being done to resolve the current problems at the RPA, we are trying to make sure that we protect the system for 2006, because we recognise the importance of a smooth transition into that subsequent year.

Christopher Huhne: Does the Secretary of State recognise that any delays that may occur beyond the end of the payment window in June, which she mentioned in yesterday's written ministerial statement, would be a clear breach of the undertakings on which the farming community relies? Will she now promise that any farmers whose payments are not completed by the end of June will have their interest costs defrayed by the Exchequer? Given that the sacking of Johnston McNeill represented some recognition of the existence of an implementation problem, does she recognise that a policy decision was involved, as we can see from the difference in the payments in England, Scotland and Wales, and that she and her team must take responsibility for that decision? Will she now consider her position accordingly?

Margaret Beckett: No. I have two things to say to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is easy to overlook the fact that in Scotland and Wales not only is there a different basis for payments, but there are far fewer claimants. Nevertheless, payments in Scotland and Wales have not been completely problem free, as was identified earlier in this Question Time. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the ministerial team made a policy decision, for which I take full responsibility, and in the long term that decision will be seen as having been clearly in the interests of the English farming community. Without getting into dispute about the decisions that people in other member states and in other parts of these isles have taken, perfectly rightly and properly, there are already growing concerns in farming communities where a different payment system has been adopted. The hon. Gentleman is comparatively new to his responsibilities, and he might not fully appreciate that the alternative basis—

Christopher Huhne: Do not patronise me.

Margaret Beckett: I am not being patronising; I am trying to be helpful. The alternative systems rest on paying somebody what was paid on a farm between 2000 and 2002. Such figures are already substantially out of date, and that will increase as the years go by. There is growing unrest in farming communities about   that being an unsatisfactory basis on which to proceed.

James Paice: I refer hon. Members to my interest. There is a real human crisis out there, because farmers face a huge amount of debt, and their suppliers are carrying large amounts of credit that they have extended to farmers who cannot pay. Any money will be welcome, and yesterday's announcement takes us in that direction. Will the Secretary of State tell us what she means by "substantial"? What proportion of farmers' entitlement does she expect to pay? Can she give us an accurate estimate of when those payments will begin? Now that she has had to start making executive decisions herself, does that not prove that she has no confidence in Lord Bach, who spent months criticising anyone who forecast this crisis, while failing to grasp the seriousness of the situation? As she has had to intervene now, how can the industry have any confidence in him?

Margaret Beckett: I entirely share the view that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I fully recognise that there is a human crisis in the farming community, and that is why we are doing everything we can to resolve it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what we envisage as a substantial partial payment. We are working on the basis of roughly 80 per cent. of the claimed amount. I think that that is recognised as being substantial, and substantially helpful. I cannot tell him at the moment when the partial payment system that is being worked on will have been validated and will be able to run. However, if it would be helpful to him and to other hon. Members, particularly Front Benchers and the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the acting chief executive could come to give a briefing with his technical experts. I know that Members will want to raise particular technical issues arising from their experience and the questions of their constituents. The best thing is for them to get those answers from those who are charged with making the day-to-day executive decisions.
	Finally, let me say how much I regret the hon. Gentleman's observations about my noble Friend. I have every confidence in Lord Bach. Had it not been for his assiduous work and continued pressure, we might not even now have had such a clear picture of the scale of the difficulties.

James Paice: Does not that make my point? The Secretary of State cannot have her cake and eat it. Themore she tells us of Lord Bach's greater involvement, the greater is his responsibility for the crisis that we are facing throughout the country, and there is even more reason why he should go. If she is not going to meet fully the window that she keeps talking about by the end of the June, how much will the British taxpayer have to pay in penalties to the European Commission for that failure?

Margaret Beckett: In fact, as I have already said, we do anticipate making all those payments within the window. That is the task on which the RPA is currently engaged. Of course I understand that there is genuine distress, concern and, in many quarters, anger at these difficulties, as well as genuine anxiety for many in the farming community. However, that does not justify looking for a scapegoat in the form of an assiduous and hard-working Minister. I do not believe that Conservative Members, or any other Members, really think that this is Lord Bach's fault or that he should go—they just cannot think of anything else to ask for.

Martin Linton: If she will discuss with the European Commission and member states requiring publication of single farm payments under the common agricultural policy.

Margaret Beckett: I am pleased that a number of member states have followed our example in publicising details of payments under the common agricultural policy, and I would certainly encourage others to do so in respect of the single payment scheme.

Martin Linton: Given that the Commission is publishing its Green Paper on transparency in May, why does my right hon. Friend not lead the way by introducing complete transparency for single farm payments under the CAP? After all, this is £1,600 million of public money, and every other Department has to identify contractors. Why should farmers be any different?

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have shown transparency in publishing broadly the amounts of the payments that are being made. I can assure him that in the fullness of time the payments for subsequent years will be published and released. That is an example that has been followed in several other member states. We are pursuing openness, but doing so with a regard for personal privacy in making available the general information, as opposed to a much more specific set of details.

Owen Paterson: It is incredible that the Secretary of State managed to get through the whole of the previous answer without saying when the payments will be made. As she will be fined by the European Commission beyond a certain date, what has she told it? When will the payments be made to farmers, and when will the last payment be made?

Margaret Beckett: I do not tell the European Commission anything different from what I tell the House. The Commission is familiar with events and has been kept informed about the steps that are being taken. Like the House, it has been told that we anticipate making the payments by the end of June.

Anne McIntosh: Is it correct that farming has been singled out uniquely as the only business in receipt of EU funds that must have the amounts published? I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Are farmers the only people who are taxed on prospective EU funds which they have not yet been paid?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot answer the first part of the hon. Lady's question because she asks me about matters for which I have no departmental responsibility. However, I would anticipate that the answer depends on whether a freedom of information request has been made. There was such a request for us to publish the moneys that went to the farming community. They are public funds and I would be surprised if the hon. Lady argued that that should not have happened. If she feels that there are other groups in receipt of EU money to whom the same rules should apply, she, or those who think like her, should consider making a freedom of information request on that basis.
	I am afraid that I have forgotten the second part of the question.

Anne McIntosh: Tax.

Margaret Beckett: Farmers are not expected to make tax payments now on single farm payment claims. Any payment on account that is sought would be based on previous subsidy receipts. That position must be the same for any business.

Avian Flu

Patrick Mercer: Which Minister has responsibility for liaising with the civil contingencies secretariat on an outbreak of avian flu in the UK.

Ben Bradshaw: DEFRA is the lead Department for animal diseases, and the level of ministerial liaison with the civil contingencies secretariat depends on the seriousness and nature of any outbreak.
	I am sure that the House would like to thank all those involved in dealing with the recent H5N1 case in Cellardyke for their hard work and professionalism, and the British public for their vigilance and co-operation.

Patrick Mercer: I thank the Under-Secretary for his reply and pay tribute to the work of the civil contingencies secretariat. However, does not the answer pose the problem that the secretariat faces? It has to deal with the whole gamut of emergencies, from serious terrorist incidents through flooding to avian flu. Each time, it has to deal with a different Secretary of State or Minister. Before avian flu strikes this country, is it not time that the Government listened to the cries from not only Conservative Members but Labour Members, and appointed a single Minister, of Cabinet status, to deal with civil contingencies?

Ben Bradshaw: That worked well in the United States in the context of hurricane Katrina—did it not?—when the President had to sack the official responsible. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It does not make sense to expect a single Minister to have such expertise in a range of policies. The experience of the avian flu outbreak shows us that the current system works well.

James McGovern: I assume that the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) tabled the question before the first incidence of avian flu in the UK. Given that it happened in Scotland—the Scottish Executive dealt with it well—it highlighted an interesting division of responsibility between the Scottish Executive and DEFRA. What plans are in place to ensure total co-operation north and south of the border and that any emergency measures, if required, are rolled out smoothly and consistently throughout the UK?

Ben Bradshaw: I assure my hon. Friend that the co-operation was total and extremely good from the beginning. The Scottish Executive took part in the daily Cobra meetings by video link. I was in regular contact with Ross Finnie, my Scottish counterpart, and the Secretary of State was intimately involved at all times. The way in which the outbreak in Scotland was handled is a good example of our working together extremely well within the devolutionary settlement, despite the potential for some complication.

Mark Pritchard: Given that Shropshire primary care trust decided yesterday to refuse Herceptin to patients and constituents of mine, who would be responsible for purchasing and distributing Tamiflu—the Government or the overstretched primary care trusts?

Ben Bradshaw: Those are matters for the Department of Health.

Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend find time in his busy schedule to read the report on the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country? Will he also find time to visit the marketplace to establish the price of fowl, so that if there is an outbreak of avian flu—which we all hope will not happen—the taxpayer will not be left picking up the bill to replace the many geese that, according to the industry, lay the golden egg?

Ben Bradshaw: The implication of my hon. Friend's question is that it is important that we learn the lessons from the foot and mouth outbreak. As has been mentioned in relation to a question on bovine tuberculosis, we have already looked carefully at the compensation that we pay. It is right that poultry and egg producers should be entitled to compensation for birds that are slaughtered in the event of any outbreak, because that provides an important incentive for them to report any signs of disease at an early stage. Everyone knows that with avian flu, as with many other animal diseases, the most important thing is early identification and quick containment and eradication.

Lynne Jones: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the article in last week's New Scientist that cast doubt on the methodology used to take samples and to deliver them with the avian influenza virus intact to the laboratory? Is he absolutely confident that his Department is receiving top quality scientific advice and that it is at the forefront of scientific research into aspects of this important disease, such as the detection of the virus in birds that have been vaccinated?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I did read that article, and I have asked my officials for further advice on it. The initial advice is that the group that carried out this type of testing in Sweden is not officially recognised under EU rules. However, I would like to take this opportunity to praise and congratulate the excellent work that is done at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency at Weybridge in Surrey. It is the world's most renowned testing centre and it tests for avian flu and animal diseases not only from this country, but from all over the world. Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at it during this outbreak have been unfair and unfounded.

Water Shortages

Greg Hands: If she will make a statement on water shortages in London and the south-east.

Richard Ottaway: If she will make a statement on water shortages in the south-east.

David Evennett: If she will make a statement on water shortages in the south-east of England.

Elliot Morley: Both groundwater and some reservoir levels in the south-east are below average for this time of year, and public water supply will need careful management. Water companies are taking prudent measures to conserve supplies in accordance with their drought plans.

Greg Hands: I thank the Minister for that answer. He mentioned prudent measures. Is he aware that the hosepipe ban introduced by Thames Water on 3 April extends only to privately owned vehicles? Does he agree that the public sector also has a role to play here? It would appear, for example, that ministerial cars are exempt from the ban.

Elliot Morley: It is important to recognise that the hosepipe ban is implemented under the water companies' own measures, and they are restricted in regard to the conditions that they can apply. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that a hosepipe or sprinkler can use in one hour the total daily water consumption of a family of four, which can have a big impact. If the water companies wish to go further and apply the ban to companies, they can apply for a drought order, as some companies have done.

Richard Ottaway: But it does not stop with hosepipe bans. Will the Minister confirm the drastic nature of the "essential use only" orders that are about to be imposed, which will result in a ban not only on car washes but on the watering of bowling greens, golf courses, tennis courts, sports grounds such as Lord's, the Oval and Wimbledon, and the Royal Parks, including Kew Gardens? Far more importantly, however, this situation has arisen because we have just had our second dry winter in a row. What are the Minister's contingency plans in the event of a third dry winter? If he waits until then, it will be far too late.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the drought started in November 2004. It is the worst drought in the south-east of England since 1976. There is a range of measures that people can take, and it is important to manage water supplies prudently. That includes taking drought orders if necessary. In the longer term, companies have obligations to have drought plans in place and to produce a 25-year forward programme that takes into account water supply and demand as well as issues such as climate change.

David Evennett: Is the Minister aware of the anger of many pensioners in my constituency about the hosepipe ban? They feel that, together with the disabled, they are the most discriminated against, as they cannot walk with watering cans to save their plants. They are therefore looking to the Minister to engage in more action and discussion with the water companies to reduce hosepipe bans in future years, and are concerned about further housing developments in the south-east, which will use more water and possibly result in more shortages in future.

Elliot Morley: That is not necessarily the case, but we should not get away from the fact that we are facing a two-year drought—and the worst drought since 1976. Indeed, in some parts of the south-east it is the worst drought for 100 years. In that respect, it is not a lot to ask that people should face some restrictions on hosepipe bans in gardens. They can still use watering cans and recycled water. Future demand for water is being taken into account, both in the current five-year price round and 25-year forward plans.

Rob Marris: This problem is likely to be connected to climate change, which is here to stay, as people will not give up their cars and cheap flights. As a country, we must deal with the effects of climate change as well as discussing measures such as the climate change levy. Can the Minister say a little more about what his Department is doing to address the effects of climate change, to which he adverted earlier, with regard to water, coastal defences, plant research and so on?

Elliot Morley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently launched our Department's climate change review, which outlines a range of measures that cut across all Departments, relating to fiscal policy, regulation, taxation and incentives designed to deal with climate change. It is easy to talk about tackling climate change, but not so easy to implement effective measures.

Jim Sheridan: In relation to the possibility of water shortages in the south-east, has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the water authorities in Scotland, which, as he will be aware, are still under public control? What discussions, if any, have there been about financial arrangements? I am sure that he will agree that it would be wrong to use public money to bail out private water companies.

Elliot Morley: The issue of water is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive. Of course, there are interests of common concern, but policy and strategic decisions are devolved.

Roger Williams: Further investment in water storage and improved infrastructure maintenance to cut out leaks will be fundamental to addressing this water shortage. I understand, however, that the Government are trialling compulsory metering in some areas. What further plans do the Government have for compulsory metering, and what protection would they put in place for poorer families to prevent them from suffering water poverty?

Elliot Morley: Water meters are but one tool, but they are an effective tool. Under legislation, water companies can make an application for the compulsory implementation of water meters if there is deemed to be water scarcity status. So far, only one company, Folkestone and Dover Water Services, has made that application, which has been granted. Other companies can make applications if they so choose. The vulnerable groups regulations are designed to protect the most vulnerable in relation to water charges, and we are trialling a pilot scheme in the south-west of England to examine what further measures can be taken to assist people on low incomes.

Peter Ainsworth: We cannot really blame the Government for the weather, but we do hold them to account for their failure to tackle climate change. The worry is that the Government are in danger of making the water crisis, if it becomes that over the summer, even worse. Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee warned that significant areas of the south-east are already being supplied water by an unacceptable and unsustainable abstraction regime in both winter and summer months. We all know that more affordable homes are needed, but is not the Minister concerned that pushing ahead with a mass house building programme in an area of water shortage will only make the situation worse? Will he talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about his plans?

Elliot Morley: That assumes that the issue of water supply is not taken into account. In the current price round, periodic review 2004, finance is available to water companies in England and Wales to upgrade and connect up to 1 million additional homes. That is within the current programme. Within the future programme, water companies are consultees on regional planning. They must ensure that there is adequate provision in their 25-year forward plans. There are plans for considerable upgrading of existing reservoirs in the south-east and for the building of new reservoirs, along with further measures to make more water resources available.

Recycling and Waste

Philip Davies: If she will make a statement on the performance of local councils in meeting their recycling and waste targets.

Ben Bradshaw: Levels of recycling by local authorities have improved dramatically on the record under the last Conservative Government. In 1997, only 8 per cent. of household waste was recycled. This year we expect local authorities to achieve the target of 25 per cent. that we set them—more than a trebling of recycling since Labour came to power.

Philip Davies: I thank the Minister for his reply, although he failed to mention that Conservative councils have a much better recycling record than Labour and Liberal Democrat councils. Can he tell us what help his Department gives communities to support local recycling initiatives, especially those run by the voluntary sector?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I can. The hon. Gentleman raised the same issue at Question Time recently, after which I contacted the local re-use and recycling network. We recently approved a new system of credits for re-use and recycling, in addition to the help that is already given to those groups. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as part of the waste review that is currently being consulted on, we envisage a more significant role for local voluntary and community groups.

Alan Whitehead: To what extent does my hon. Friend consider that the reduction in the amount of municipal waste going to landfill is a result of the implementation of the landfill allowance trading scheme? Does he intend to monitor the scheme's progress, and does he intend to review its long-term future after 2009 as part of the waste review process?

Ben Bradshaw: Everything, to an extent, is up for review as part of the process. It is still too early to judge how well the landfill allowance trading scheme has worked, but the initial signs are encouraging. Of course, the landfill tax escalator is a much more significant driver for local authorities and businesses to reduce the amount of waste that they produce and send to landfill. The level of that escalator and its steepness are also being considered as part of the waste strategy review.

Nicholas Winterton: There is no doubt that local authorities take recycling increasingly seriously, and I commend them for that. Obviously, we want to monitor their performance, but have the Minister and the Government any plans to try to reduce the amount of material presented for recycling, particularly the massive amount of packaging on practically everything that we buy in the shops? Is there any Government policy on the issue, and what contact does the Minister have with the huge superstores that generate that massive amount of material for recycling?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. It is important for us to minimise the amount of waste that we produce in the first place, and minimisation is at the top of the Government's so-called waste hierarchy.
	We have had some success. Last year, for the first time ever, we reduced by 1 per cent. the overall amount of municipal waste that we produced as a country. There are packaging waste regulations, which make challenging requirements of the businesses and supermarkets to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are also considering carefully, as part of the waste review, what further measures could be introduced to encourage waste reduction and minimisation.

Jessica Morden: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is looking at community recycling. Will he pay particular attention to Wastesavers in my constituency, which is an award-winning project? Community enterprise is much cheaper than many private schemes. The level of participation is high, and residents separate material at source so that less is contaminated and ends up as landfill. Will my hon. Friend examine that project as an example of good practice?

Ben Bradshaw: I should be happy to do so.

Energy Policy

Jo Swinson: What recent discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on the cost-effectiveness of (a) nuclear power and (b) other measures in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Margaret Beckett: There are regular discussions at ministerial and official level on energy and climate change, including discussions on the relative costs of different means of generating power.

Jo Swinson: Now that the bill for clearing up nuclear waste is approaching £70 billion, of which £5.2 billion is for the three Scottish sites, does the Secretary of State agree that money spent on new nuclear power would be better spent on energy efficiency and renewables? Has her Department undertaken any work internally to assess the cost benefit of various energy options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? If so, what conclusions has it reached?

Margaret Beckett: It was a feature of the energy White Paper that we published together with the Department of Trade and Industry in 2003 that the prime emphasis was initially on energy efficiency and renewables. That was precisely because they were seen as the most speedy and effective way to begin to tackle some of these issues, and also the most cost-effective, so I can certainly tell the hon. Lady that that has been a high priority and that the issue is being looked at afresh in the energy review.

Joan Ruddock: Despite what my right hon. Friend has just said, does she agree that it is unfortunate that the energy review has become so focused on nuclear power when nuclear power is only 8 per cent. of the total UK energy mix that gives rise to emissions? Will she ensure that any outcomes of the energy review are fully integrated with the climate change review to achieve a major reduction in energy demand, an improvement in energy efficiency and maximum development of renewable technologies?

Margaret Beckett: It is my understanding that the review is not focused only on nuclear energy, although I appreciate that the media coverage is. It is the intention of both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself—and, indeed, the Government—that the issues should be fully integrated with those that concerned us in the climate change review, including reduction in demand—not least through energy efficiency—and an increase in renewables.
	My hon. Friend may recall that when we announced the climate change review we were careful to point out that that specific review was not the last word, not least because the energy review is under way.

Mark Lazarowicz: Whatever decision the Government eventually make on the matter, at a time when consumers already face increases in their energy bills will the Government ensure that they are not faced with an additional nuclear levy to make nuclear power attractive to investors in a way that it would not otherwise be?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend rightly makes a point about increased energy prices. There are immense gains to be made in terms of energy efficiency because it is not only beneficial for the climate, but beneficial for the pocket of the customer. The review will include whatever issues would have to be taken into account were there to be a recommendation for further nuclear build.

Single Payments Scheme

Ann Winterton: what proportion of single farm payments were made by the end of March.

Margaret Beckett: Some 25 per cent. of applicants had been paid by the end of March, and 15 per cent. of the fund disbursed. This unacceptably slow progress was, as the hon. Lady knows, the reason why the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency was replaced on 16 March.

Ann Winterton: I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State of substantial part payment—approximately 80 per cent.—of entitlements under the single farm payment scheme. It will help to ameliorate the disastrous financial situation in which many in the farming community find themselves. Will the Secretary of State go even further and suspend cross-compliance inspection until the payment process is complete? Will she waive penalties for late claims in 2006 because, as she knows, the system is completely inflexible?

Margaret Beckett: I do not think that I can undertake to waive cross-compliance considerations, but we fully recognise the concerns about all these issues. I assure the hon. Lady and the House that we are trying to look sensitively at a number of specific issues, such as the one that the hon. Lady raised of differences and difficulties with particular payments.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the premium that her Department places on stakeholder engagement and discussions in this important area. I was pleased to welcome the Minister with responsibility for rural communities to my constituency in the recess for a rural conference. I welcome yesterday's statement on partial payments. How did stakeholder discussions with Lord Bach inform the decision?

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend will be aware, Lord Bach and the acting chief executive Mark Addison have been having weekly meetings with stakeholder representatives, which have included opportunities for stakeholders to raise any concerns and to discuss issues with the technical experts dealing with the issues on a day-to-day basis. As I think the stakeholders recognised in their press release of yesterday, it was very much as a consequence of the discussions as well as the exploration of what can be done within the RPA that we made the announcement that we did yesterday. We are grateful to the stakeholders for their input.

Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State's approach to this whole fiasco smacks of complacency. Her own figures show that in the first four weeks the RPA paid 23 per cent. of the claims. In the last three weeks it has paid a further 16 per cent. How can she possibly claim that there is a significant improvement when the rate has slowed?

Margaret Beckett: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that some work, not least to prepare for 2006, had to be done on the IT system over the past couple of weeks. That inevitably and regrettably led to a slowdown. A reason why I offered the House a technical briefing with the acting chief executive and those who are dealing with those issues was so that Members, all of whom will have particular concerns brought to them by particular constituents, have the opportunity to raise those issues with the RPA, as we are doing, and have a full discussion on a more sustained basis than is possible across the Floor of the House.

Business of the House

Theresa May: First, Mr.   Speaker, may I give you a personal welcome back to the Chair and say how good it is to see you back in good health and on good form?
	I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business of the House for the coming weeks.

Geoff Hoon: I endorse the words of the right hon. Lady. The whole House is delighted, Mr. Speaker, to see you back in your rightful place in this Chamber.
	The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 24 April—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
	Tuesday 25 April—Second Reading of the Housing Corporation (Delegation) Etc. Bill
	Wednesday 26 April—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill.
	Thursday 27 April—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.
	Friday 28 April—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Tuesday 2 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
	Wednesday 3 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
	Thursday 4 May—A debate on the Government's strategy to improve the life chances of disabled people on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 5 May—The House will not be sitting.
	It may help the House to know that the business in Westminster Hall for the first three weeks of May will be:
	Thursday 4 May—A debate on enterprise and its contribution to society.
	Thursday 11 May—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on HIV/AIDS and the provision of anti-retrovirals.
	Thursday 18 May—A debate on the Darfur crisis.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks. Will he arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the House and explain his statements about the health service? Yesterday, in Prime Minister's questions, he said:
	"in the Thames Valley strategic health authority area . . . in 1997, more than 2,500 patients waited longer than 13 weeks for their out-patient appointment; today the figure is none."—[Official Report, Wednesday 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 116.]
	One of my constituents was watching and was annoyed because she knew that that was not true. On 19 December 2005, her GP asked for an appointment with a specialist at Wexham Park hospital in Slough, part of the Thames Valley strategic health authority area. She was given an appointment for 10 May 2006— not a 13-week wait, but a 20-week wait. The Prime Minister misled the House. When will he come to explain himself?
	As we see yet more job losses in the NHS, hospitals threatened with closure and patients being denied life-improving drugs, people have one simple question: where has all the money gone? Can we have a statement from the Health Secretary explaining the Government's failure on the NHS?
	Figures published yesterday show that one third of post offices have closed in London in the last three years, for example, seven in Beckenham, five in Hammersmith and Fulham, five in Merton and 22 in Croydon. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that post office closures hit communities hard, and allow a debate on the future of post office branches?
	May we have a debate in the next two weeks on the environmental record of local councils and the link between crime and grime? Improving local surroundings can lead to lower crime. Figures show yet again that, of the top five councils for recycling and composting, four are Conservative-controlled, while the fifth is under no overall control. Conservative Richmond has reduced landfill by 20,000 tonnes a year. Conservative Woking has cut its emissions by 77 per cent. since installing its own microgeneration grid and Conservative Enfield's environmental crime unit has clamped down on fly-tipping, graffiti and abandoned vehicles, with incidents falling by 30 per cent. in one year alone. That shows clearly that people who vote blue can go green.
	During that debate, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who has suddenly become interested in the environment—to come to the House to explain why he announced in his recent Budget a new zero-rate road tax on environmentally friendly cars yet failed to mention that no cars available to buy today in the UK are eligible for it?
	Finally, may we have a debate on how to handle disputes between neighbours? At the last business questions, I wished the Leader of the House a quiet recess. However, I am sorry that he had to spend part of it trying to stop the battle between the Blairites and the Brownites in government. He said that they were
	"damaging the party at this critical time".
	I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman said to his constituency Labour party, which recently voted on when the Prime Minister should resign. I understand that he owns a house in Kennington that has squatters next door: given his experience with unwanted occupiers next door, perhaps he would like to advise the Chancellor on how to remove the squatter in No. 10.

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the right hon. Lady did not intend to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had misled the House and that, with the benefit of slightly more mature thought, she will accept that it was not an appropriate observation to make. I am certainly willing to allow her to correct the record, if she wishes to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would have intervened if I thought that an entirely improper remark had been made. I judged the matter in its context, and the right hon. Lady did not suggest that there had been deliberate misleading. However, the Chair is always concerned that, as far possible, moderate language should be used in the House. I hope that that will be generally observed.

Dennis Skinner: She has been let off because she is a Tory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a grossly offensive and misleading remark on the part of the hon. Member, and I would wish that he withdraw it.

Dennis Skinner: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member is challenging the Chair, the Chair has certain powers that it will not hesitate to use. Is the hon. Member prepared to apologise?

Dennis Skinner: Why is there one rule for Labour and another for the Tories?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I name the hon. Member.
	I see that, by withdrawing from the Chamber, the hon. Member has taken the easier way out.

Geoff Hoon: It is important that we have a proper debate about the enormous funding increases that this Government have made available to the NHS and it is right that taxpayers want that money to be spent properly and effectively. The Government are embarked on a fundamental change in the NHS that will be self- sustaining and to the benefit of patients. I am confident that the debate will go on in the months ahead and sure that the country as a whole will see the enormous benefits flowing from the extra investment being made in the NHS and from the reform programme that is under way.
	The Government will take no lessons from the Opposition about the NHS. Under the Conservatives, it was a disgrace, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) knows. She understands that most Conservative party members at that time fundamentally did not believe in the NHS. It will be interesting to see, when we finally get the results of the series of reviews being undertaken by the Conservatives, whether they remain true to their principles and continue to advocate dismantling our national health service.
	The right hon. Lady raises the issue of recycling and Conservative-run councils, but most Labour Members—and, indeed, most parties other than the Conservative party—recognise the degree of recycling of Conservative party policy in the months since its new leader was elected. If the Conservatives are so committed to environmental protection and tackling climate change, why are they so opposed to the climate change levy—the very mechanism that is delivering change, to the benefit of our environment? The right hon. Lady wants to lecture the House on environmental policy, but she should start closer to home by inviting the Leader of the Opposition to explain how wearing a green tie, riding a bicycle and flying to the Arctic circle is a substitute for a serious debate on environmental policy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is engaged in a serious and substantive debate on how to protect our environment internationally and he is dealing with what I suspect is a pretty tough audience in New York, rather than a handful of journalists on a photo-shoot somewhere inside the Arctic circle.
	On the eligibility of motor vehicles, the right hon. Lady has not understood that what is important is that we set challenging and demanding targets for the motor industry—and, indeed, for the country—in promoting the environment. This issue is more important than simple photo opportunities, which, frankly, are all that the Conservative party can currently offer.

David Heath: As was clear from Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions earlier, there is an urgent need for a debate on the shambles that is single farm payments, and the fact that many farmers will not receive their payments by the close of the payment window at the end of June. If a member of the public fails to pay the Government by the appropriate time, they are taken to court or have interest imposed on them. Why are the Government not prepared to pay interest by the close of the payment window to those who were unlawfully refused payments? Moreover, why have next year's application forms, which have to be submitted in three weeks' time, not yet been sent out to many farmers?
	While we are talking about mismanagement, we need an urgent debate on the health service. Despite the record sums being put into it, the fact remains that acute hospitals throughout the country—including my own general hospital, the Royal United hospital, in Bath—are sacking staff. That is entirely unsatisfactory, as the Leader of the House must recognise.
	May we have a debate on the outcome of the court case between Deloitte and the Bank of England, which has ramifications for the court system and for the Department of Trade and Industry in terms of insolvency practice? It was instigated 12 years ago and has taken 256 trial days. At least £120 million of creditors' money has been spent on an entirely inadequate case that has now collapsed. Surely lessons should be learned from such a fiasco in our courts.
	Lastly, may we have a debate on the manufacturing industry? We are all aware of what has happened with Peugeot, but the same situation is being replicated on a smaller scale day after day, week after week in many of our towns, where manufacturing industry is being squeezed out. The Government must have a proper manufacturing industry policy and it is this House's responsibility to debate the matter.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get called during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. Since they finished only 13 minutes ago, I do not intend to add to the answers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave when the issue of farm payments was raised with her directly. In future, he might seek the same opportunity to ask questions as is available to all Members of the House.
	On the health service, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to use emotive language such as "sacking staff". If he checks, he will find that year on year, the NHS is employing far more people than ever before. This year alone, there has been an increase of about 38,000 in the number employed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members affect amusement at that observation, but surely every Member supports my contention at the outset, which is that a huge amount of public money is being spent on the national health service. That public money needs to be spent effectively and sensibly and, crucially, it needs to be spent on delivering front-line services across the country, on nurses, doctors and consultants. Numbers in each of those professions have increased significantly since 1997. Obviously, it is important that they receive the best back-up in terms of administrative support, but if it is possible to reduce the number of people involved in administration and still deliver an excellent health service, every Member of the House should support that.
	There are lessons to be learned from the particular court case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and I am confident that we shall do so. It is important, however, that court cases be allowed to proceed independently of political observation and comment.
	I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's observations about our commitment to manufacturing industry; nor would the Government, who are absolutely committed to it. The Government are also committed to supporting the people who work in that industry. Clearly, it is a matter of regret and sadness for those who have been told that they will lose their jobs at Peugeot over a period of time. We would have preferred Peugeot to  remain operating in the United Kingdom, manufacturing vehicles, but the British car industry today is an absolute success right across the country. We are producing high-quality cars. In Sunderland, we have the most efficient car plant anywhere in Europe, and there has been a 25 per cent. increase in production at Toyota in Derbyshire. The record of manufacturing in our car industry is outstanding and I should be much more interested in the hon. Gentleman's concern about manufacturing if he had put it in that context.

Desmond Turner: My right hon. Friend will agree that the forthcoming decision about whether to deploy a new generation of nuclear generators is one of the most momentous that the Government will undertake for a considerable time. He will be aware that recent reports from the Sustainable Development Commission and the Environmental Audit Committee have thrown some light on the question. Does he agree that such an important decision should be debated by the whole House, in the Chamber, before it is finally taken? Will he find time for such a debate?

Geoff Hoon: I agree that issues such as our energy requirements and their contribution to protecting our environment are vital for the future of the country. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy have undertaken such a comprehensive review, which concluded its first phase on 14 April. The huge number of representations that were received are being considered and I am confident that time will be available for the House to debate those matters in due course.

John Redwood: Given that we are not meeting our carbon targets and carbon emissions are going up, may we have an early debate on how Ministers and Departments could cut their carbon footprint on the planet? By choosing more sensible cars, travelling less and not using the Queen's Flight so much, by looking at how buildings are insulated and at control systems in buildings and by introducing fuel-efficient lighting, the Government could do a number of things to contribute to trying to meet targets that they are not hitting.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman makes an entirely sensible and practical suggestion on something about which all Departments are concerned. In my previous ministerial capacity, I was concerned to ensure that, when the Ministry of Defence main buildings were refurbished, for example, environmental considerations were taken into account along the lines that he suggested. I agree that it is important that the Government set a good example for others to follow.

Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend urge the Government to make a statement to the House—if they are not already planning to do so—on the publication of the document, "Self-sufficiency in blood products in England and Wales: A chronology from 1973 to 1991"? My right hon. Friend has encyclopaedic knowledge of things coming from all Departments, but I am sure that he missed that document. Even the Haemophilia Society only found out from a website that it had been published and had to ask for a copy. I am the chair of the all-party group on haemophilia and I only received a copy, through the Haemophilia Society, in the last few days. The document is strongly criticised by the society for omitting some of the major points that were supposed to be considered—the Government's involvement and omissions at a high level of Government. There was a disaster: 4,800 people were contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C in the 1970s and 1980s. Is not it time that we had a statement from the Government and a commitment to a public inquiry into how that scandal occurred?

Geoff Hoon: I confess that, in my Easter recess reading, I overlooked that report, although I did see some newspaper accounts of it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that important issue, and I am sure that his observations will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who will respond appropriately.

John Bercow: May we please have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Health on the future of the Nuffield speech and language unit, whose fate is to be determined by July this year? Given that the unit is a centre of excellence that provides intensive specialist therapy and teaching to children aged between four and seven with severe communication disorders for whom there is not and cannot be any comparable provision in mainstream education, does the right hon. Gentleman understand how horrified the friends of the unit are that it is earmarked for closure? What will the Government do to safeguard that vital national resource?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Member has raised the issue effectively, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will respond to him in due course. I cannot offer him a statement on that question next week, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will deal with him through correspondence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had four very wordy interventions so far. At that rate, I shall not be able to call every hon. Member who is trying to catch my eye, so I would appreciate hon. Members' co-operation in being concise in putting their questions.

Anne Moffat: Will my right hon. Friend initiate a debate on the future of junior football clubs, which play a vital role in our communities? An unnecessary tax burden is being placed on them that has never been placed on them previously. If that happens, it could mean their closure.

Geoff Hoon: I know how seriously my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes Scottish football and I am sure that he would be anxious to hear of the issue raised by my hon. Friend. I am not aware of the detail that she refers to, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond to her appropriately.

George Young: On Tuesday, we had the Second Reading of the Commons Bill [Lords]. When might we expect the Second Reading of the Lords Bill [Commons], delivering the Government's 2001 election manifesto pledge for a more accountable second chamber?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished Member and knows the conventions that govern constitutional change. The Government have already delivered the first stage of reforming our second chamber. It is important that any second stage continues by consensus. This is not a matter that has traditionally divided the political parties—or not across the Chamber, at any rate—and in those circumstances, I hope that he will bear this time a little more patiently, as we review the way in which we are determined to deliver our manifesto commitment. That will necessarily take some time.

David Taylor: Just two weeks or so ago, the Chancellor's welcome initiative to fund free off-peak bus travel in local authority boundaries for pensioners and those with disabilities was implemented with great success in most parts of the country, to be rolled out nationally in two years' time. Will the Leader of the House comment on the fact that both Labour-controlled Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire county councils have been able to work with their local authorities to extend that initiative county-wide, which makes sense in many areas, whereas Conservative-controlled Leicestershire county council has not been able to do so? That runs against the Chancellor's intention, does it not? May we have a statement on that?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. I am well aware that that national initiative has not been followed through by some local authorities. It is essential that all local authorities recognise the importance of free off-peak bus travel for our pensioners—it is of huge benefit to them and to our society—and it is important that the money that is made available to local authorities is used for that purpose.

Owen Paterson: On 25 October, the Secretary of State for Health stated that no primary care trust should fail to prescribe Herceptin on grounds of cost. Following a decision yesterday by the priorities committee of the Shropshire PCT, my constituents must raise £47,000 to be treated, and they are being treated in NHS hospitals where the same equipment, the same drug, the same ward and the same oncologist are delivering that drug free to patients with Welsh addresses or certain Staffordshire addresses. That is medically wrong, it is morally wrong and it is politically inept. Will the Secretary of State for Health come next week to explain to the House why the NHS is not delivering on her promise?

Geoff Hoon: The position has not changed as far as the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health are concerned. She has very clearly set out the position, as the hon. Gentleman has very fairly stated. We would expect every health service organisation throughout the country to accept the terms of what she has set out. That is something that should happen.

Julie Morgan: Yesterday, the Home Secretary made a very important announcement in a written statement about changes to the compensation paid to the victims of miscarriages of justice and other changes. That has caused a great deal of concern to people who have suffered miscarriages of justice—in particular, my constituent, Mike O'Brien, one of the so-called newsagent three, who was wrongfully imprisoned for 11 years. When can we debate those proposals, particularly the Home Secretary's proposed review of whether technical errors in the trial constitute miscarriages of justice?

Geoff Hoon: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out in his statement how to deal with the discretionary scheme. That will not affect the legal rights of those who have been subject to miscarriages of justice. I am sure that that issue can be raised with my right hon. Friend at an appropriate stage during Home Office questions. It is an important issue, but we believe that, in making those proposed changes, we are achieving the right balance between compensating those who suffer a miscarriage of justice and those who suffer the consequences of crime.

Peter Robinson: The Government have been considering the distribution of Olympic events to regions outside London. When might we have a statement in the House so that we can learn what benefit will be derived in Northern Ireland?

Geoff Hoon: As someone who represents a constituency well outside London, I recognise the importance to the rest of the country of understanding how the bid will benefit other parts of the country, but it is equally important to recognise that the bid was won by London for London and that, necessarily, a balance must be struck between ensuring that, for example, athletes do not have to travel great distances to compete in their events and recognising that this will be a great national opportunity for the country. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will inform the House in due course, once decisions have been reached about the appropriate distribution of events.

Geraldine Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the council tax is hugely unpopular and grossly unfair to people on fixed incomes. Is it not about time that we scrapped that tax, which the Conservatives introduced? May we have a debate on that and on alternative means of raising the revenue that we receive from the council tax?

Geoff Hoon: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are considering ways in which local taxation could be raised fairly and equitably across the country. That is currently the subject of a detailed review. As soon as that review has been completed, an appropriate statement will be made to the House.

Andrew MacKay: Returning to out-patient appointment times in the Thames valley, which includes my constituency, it was clear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) pointed out earlier, that the Prime Minister inadvertently gave incorrect figures to the House yesterday. How does the Leader of the House propose to correct that and by which mechanism next week?

Geoff Hoon: If that is the case—obviously I am not in a position to say whether it is true at the moment—there is a well-used process by which statistical mistakes are corrected. Letters would be written and placed in the Library.

Fraser Kemp: Bearing in mind that, in fewer than four years, China will produce more PhDs than the whole of the United States, clearly the idea that emerging markets are just about cheap and available labour is plainly wrong. Will the Leader of the House provide an opportunity for the House to hold a debate on encouraging more people to go into higher education, particularly in areas such as mine, which historically has suffered from low take-up— 20 per cent. as against 35 per cent.? Will he support a campaign that is being launched on Wearside by the university and the Sunderland Echo to encourage more people to go into higher education so that we can unlock the potential on Wearside to compete in a changing and rapidly developing global economy?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that important issue. In business questions today, we have already discussed the manufacturing industry. The challenge for the United Kingdom is to remain competitive in a global environment where we will face real challenges intellectually from countries such as China and India and other countries already engaged extensively in manufacturing. I strongly support the initiative that he mentioned. It is important not only for the north-east, but for the whole of the United Kingdom, that we ensure that more and more of our young people get the benefit of a higher education.

Bob Russell: The Leader of the House will be aware that Sunday is St. George's day. Will there be an opportunity next week to have a debate on English pride and to take on the English prejudices that sometimes arise? Will there also be an opportunity for the Arts Council of England to explain its cultural cleansing of English folk dance and song, which has happened at the same time as it has found £5.5 million to invest in a gallery to promote contemporary Latin American art?

Geoff Hoon: I just about saw the connection between the hon. Gentleman's premise and his conclusion. He is absolutely right that those of us who are proud to be English—as well as being proud to be British and, indeed, European—should celebrate our national day: St. George's day. I am less confident about my knowledge of English folk music and folk dance, but I am sure that he is right in what he says.

Nadine Dorries: I am not sure whether you are aware of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but today the Government have announced that they are to introduce dignity nurses in hospitals. Apparently, that is to prevent nurses from shouting at patients, failing to ensure that they are properly fed or clothed and allowing them to soil themselves. Are the Government making a statement on the standard of nursing in hospitals today by calling for that, and can we have a long-awaited debate on the NHS to decide whether that scheme is appropriate?

Geoff Hoon: I was not sure from the hon. Lady's remarks whether she was criticising the initiative. I hope that she was not because it seems right and proper that, in each hospital, an individual should be responsible for ensuring that proper standards are maintained. I am sure that, in most hospitals, in any event, the highest standards are maintained in relation to the treatment of the elderly, but I cannot see how there can be any possible objection to making sure that someone has responsibility in each hospital for ensuring the dignity of those who are being treated. I hope that she will join me in recognising that this cannot be, in any way, an initiative that should be criticised.

Ian Lucas: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on broadcasters' access to digital television channels? There is increasing concern that more and more digital television channels are being used for gambling. There have been press reports concerning the onset of ITV Play. It is very important that digital television is used for community benefit and that there is local digital television. Will the Government please consider that very closely?

Geoff Hoon: The digital television revolution certainly provides a tremendous opportunity for a range of services—national, international and, certainly, local—to be made available. We are witnessing a revolution in the way in which people will consume television services. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely that it is important that those services should be rich and diverse and should not narrowly concentrate on one particular aspect of activity. In case he is not aware of this, I should tell him that there are questions on Monday to the Secretary of State responsible for this issue and I am sure that he can raise the matter with her then.

William Cash: I ask the Leader of the House to recall that it is now four months since the end of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. Did he note that, a couple of days ago, the European Budget Commissioner stated that the figures that were given by the Prime Minister with regard to the budget deal were not accurate? The final spending for 2007 to 2013 will exceed £600 billion, which is £24 billion above the budget that the Prime Minister announced. That means that the taxpayers of this country will have to find an extra £2 billion. When will a Bill be brought in to implement the changes under the European finance arrangements, which have been so misleadingly presented to the House?

Geoff Hoon: I simply do not recognise the figures on which the hon. Gentleman is relying. By coincidence, earlier this week I attended a meeting that was organised under the auspices of the Austrian EU presidency. The Austrian Chancellor was at pains to congratulate the British Government on their stewardship of the EU during that period and, in particular, to emphasise the excellence of the budget deal for all countries. He wanted to impress on me how pleased he was at the way in which the British had conducted themselves during that time.

Lindsay Hoyle: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will provide time for a debate on the proposed closure of respite care centres in Lancashire. That is of critical importance not just to parents, but to all members of the families, because things will fall back on the families if the care centres close. It would be absurd if the closures were to go ahead. May we have that debate?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise an important issue for those who are responsible for caring. Respite care centres provide a valuable service to the community and individuals. They allow relatives, in particular, to have a break from the onerous responsibilities of caring. He has raised the issue and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will respond appropriately in due course.

John Hayes: I wonder whether the Leader of the House will give the House the opportunity to consider the way in which the Government have broken their word on education. The whole House will remember that, in 1997, the Prime Minister made great play of saying that he was going to cut primary class sizes. Then and since, he has promised to tackle school truancy. I have received parliamentary answers recently showing that, in the past three years, the number of children in classes of over 30 in primary schools has doubled and school truancy has risen by 200,000. Have the Government changed their mind about those priorities or have they simply broken their promises?

Geoff Hoon: I know that the hon. Gentleman may not have read the Labour party's manifesto in 1997 with quite as much care as he should have done, but if he checks that manifesto, he will see that the commitment was not in relation to primary education generally; it was in relation to early years, and that promise was categorically carried out. In case he failed to notice this, I should just mention that the electorate voted for the Labour Government again in 2001 and in 2005. Rather than suggesting that somehow promises from 1997 were broken, the electorate have made a judgment about the record of success in education. Labour Members will take no lessons at all from Conservatives in relation to health or education. This country has seen a revolution in the provision of health and education since 1997—a revolution that is benefiting the great majority of our children and young people in education, and will go on doing so.

Keith Vaz: May I strongly support the call made earlier by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for a debate on the liquidation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? The Leader of the House will know that that liquidation has gone on for the past 15 years and millions of pounds of creditors' money has been spent on accountants and lawyers. He will have noted the judgment of Mr. Justice Tomlinson. The state of affairs is thoroughly unsatisfactory and the Insolvency Service has done absolutely nothing to bring that liquidation to a conclusion. Please may we have an urgent debate on that very important issue?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has consistently pursued the matter over a long period of time. I am not going to trade details with him because I anticipate that he has probably forgotten more about the case than I will ever learn. He is right to raise this important matter. I am sure that the House can discuss and debate it, and if he applies for an Adjournment debate on it, I am absolutely confident that it will be seriously considered.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Leader of the House recall an exchange that we had on 8 December? I asked him about the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, and he basically told me not to be a silly boy and not to waste his time. He went on to say that he did not know whether the Act was still in force, but assured me that all
	"Government Ministers observe all relevant legislation at all times."—[Official Report, 8 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1008.]
	Given that a senior Government official has now been arrested, does he stand by his original comments to me?

Geoff Hoon: I recall the exchange that we had on 8 December, but certainly do not recall using the expression that the hon. Gentleman described, even if it was appropriate. I repeat the position: the Government are at all times bound by relevant legislation, as, similarly, are Government officials. I am not going to comment on the specific case, but the hon. Gentleman stretches the definition of Government official a little far by including in it the particular person in the case.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the introduction of the national minimum wage has enhanced the quality of life of many of our constituents, especially our young people. However, a loophole remains whereby unscrupulous employers can include in the national minimum wage gratuities and tips. Will my right hon. Friend raise the matter with the appropriate Minister so that the loophole is closed and the strength of feeling among Labour Members about consumers still being asked to subsidise unscrupulous employers is demonstrated?

Geoff Hoon: The issue has been raised with me before and I recognise its importance. It is vital that the integrity of our minimum wage legislation is respected and recognised, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take up the matter in due course.

Jo Swinson: May we please have a debate on the television licence fee concessionary schemes? More than 70 Members have signed early-day motion 1782 on the TV licence fee scheme for domestic abuse refuges.
	[That this House is deeply concerned that women who have fled to refuge centres due to domestic abuse are responsible for purchasing a television licence immediately should they have a television in their room; notes that many women in such a distressed and displaced position are particularly reliant upon television, especially to entertain their children; is aware that women are at the greatest risk of homicide when they have fled their abuser; further notes that violent men who stalk their ex-partners often pose as officials to gain access to properties when seeking the women; believes that women who have fled a violent partner should not feel threatened by an enforcement officer arriving unannounced at the refuge; further notes that the Government's own targets for local authorities is one refuge bed space per 10,000 population, totalling 6,000 across the UK; further notes that women often do not know how long they will need to stay in a refuge; expresses concern that funds from charities and organisations which run refuge centres are being diverted to pay for television licences for the rooms available to sheltered women; recognises that the hospitality sector already benefits from television licence concessions; further recognises that it is the Government's stated policy to assist the vulnerable in accessing television services; and therefore calls for women's refuge centres to be included in the same television licence fee scheme as hotels and guesthouses.]
	Such refuges do not enjoy any fee concessions, although profit-making businesses such as hotels and guest houses do. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate the matter in light of the BBC charter review White Paper, which was published last month, so that Ministers can take account of the views of hon. Members when formulating legislation?

Geoff Hoon: I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members have had the same experience as me, but nothing has caused more difficulty over the years than the variety of concessionary television licence schemes. The schemes were introduced for perfectly proper reasons and they were amended, which caused still further confusion. I realise that a proper system for concessions must be fair for different individuals and institutions, so I am sure that we will strive to achieve that.

Grant Shapps: The Leader of the House might be aware that the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in my constituency has a £50 million financial deficit. It was announced just last week that it is laying off 500 staff and closing many of its departments, so it might surprise him, as it did me, to find out that one of my constituents sent it a cheque for £15 when he felt bad about missing an appointment with a consultant at the hospital, only to find it returned with a note saying that the hospital did not need the money. We are all in favour of health care being free at the point of use, but can the Leader of the House tell me how on earth we have got into this kind of mess with the health service?

Geoff Hoon: I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's last observation. If, finally, the entire Conservative party has been converted to supporting the national health service and does not want extensive privatisation, it is a welcome improvement to its position. May I emphasise a point that I have made repeatedly? Given the amounts that are made available from the taxpayer to the national health service, it is important that all NHS organisations maintain a balance between their expenditure and income. Given that only a handful are failing to achieve that, it is important that we continue to offer help and assistance to the hon. Gentleman's hospital and others that are not able to manage their finances effectively. Such help is available, and it will go on being available until we ensure that we are getting the best value for the taxpayer out of the enormous sums that are put into the health service.

Greg Hands: May I return to the cross-party calls for an early debate on job losses in the NHS? Three years ago, Ravenscourt Park hospital, which is in my constituency, was nationalised. At that time the chief executive of the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust said to the press that staffing was growing all the time and that he was looking to recruit from all over the world, starting with Germany and going on from there. Three years later, the same chief executive announced 300 redundancies, so may we have an early opportunity to debate boom and bust in the NHS under Labour?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman misses from his litany of complaint the quality and number of treatments undertaken by health service hospitals and bodies throughout the country. We want to see experienced health service professionals—nurses, doctors and consultants—delivering the service. We want them to deliver the service with overheads that are as low as can possibly be achieved. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that the national health service is delivering the treatments and quality of care for which it is rightly famed. It is a success and a cause for congratulation that that is being done more efficiently and cost-effectively.

Jim Devine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be the height of hypocrisy to shed crocodile tears for one's local health service if one is covered by a private medical insurance scheme? Would it not be a good idea if Conservative Members were to tell us whether they are covered when they ask questions on the subject?

Geoff Hoon: The Government's ambition is to continue to ensure that the national health service offers both choice and a quality of service that are comparable with anything available in private health care. That is a perfectly proper ambition for a Government who are concerned about the great majority of the people of this country.

Julian Brazier: May we have an early debate on raves? For the second time in less than 12 months, Denge wood in my constituency has had a rave involving many hundreds of people, which caused a huge amount of noise all night for local residents. A site of special scientific interest has been damaged due to rubbish, trees being torn up and even human excrement left there. How does that fit with the Government's respect agenda?

Geoff Hoon: It fits to the extent that there are proper procedures and arrangements for the licensing and conduct of such events. If they are not observed and recognised, it is important that the appropriate authorities, whether that is the local council or police service, take effective action, and we will support them in doing so.

Iris Robinson: The Leader of the House will be aware that despite the availability of the morning-after pill to young teenage girls, numbers of pregnancies are rising, especially among the 13 to 14-year-old age group. Will he make available Government time to debate the impact that the Government's approach is having on young people in particular and society in general, and to allow hon. Members to discuss other ways of discouraging teenagers from becoming sexually active?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Lady raises a vital issue about which the Government are seriously concerned. We must ensure that the appropriate education and services are available to advise young people. I strongly agree with her, and the Government take the matter seriously.

Philip Hollobone: In north Northamptonshire, residents want to keep their own primary care trust. The Secretary of State for Health is due to announce changes to the configuration of PCTs next month. Before she makes her decision, will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on PCT reconfiguration, and will he ensure that the Secretary of State makes an oral statement to the House, not a written one?

Geoff Hoon: I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out to the House in an appropriate way the results of her consideration of these important issues. I recognise the importance to local communities of having a responsive and accountable primary care trust, and, equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the importance, which I have set out repeatedly today, of ensuring that the administrative overheads for those delivering front-line medical services are as light as possible. If there are ways in which we can reduce overheads and make the service more efficient, thus allowing more money to be spent on front-line medical care, we should all support them.

Michael Penning: The Leader of the House will know that in the past year I have raised the disastrous financial situation of the hospital trust on which Hemel Hempstead relies. Last week, it announced that all the acute units would close, including intensive care, the high-dependency unit, and the acute cardiac and stroke units. Children's paediatric services will not be available 24 hours a day. A total of 700 jobs will go, including those of doctors and nurses. Where has all the money gone? May we have an urgent statement?

Geoff Hoon: I will not be drawn into the particular case, but it is important that health service provision across the country should allow constituents of all right hon. and hon. Members to access services in the most cost-effective way possible. It is therefore the Government's ambition to ensure that we have a self-sustaining reform system with the highest possible investment of taxpayers' money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would support that.

Philip Davies: Given that a Minister has finally cottoned on to the fact that the Government's actions have led to an increase in support for the British National party, may we have an urgent debate on political correctness in this country, as it has got completely out of hand and many people believe that they can no longer have their say on important issues, which has led them to vote for unwelcome parties such as the BNP? An urgent debate on the issue might stop people wanting to vote for those unpleasant parties.

Geoff Hoon: I have had the opportunity in recent weeks to participate in local government election campaigns up and down the country, but I have not detected the slightest sign that people are afraid to say something because of so-called political correctness. Our democracy is alive and well, and people are ever more inclined to call their local radio station or write to their local newspaper to make their views clear, even to Cabinet Ministers. I simply do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mark Lancaster: Will the Foreign Secretary come to the House next week to make a statement on the political situation in Nepal? Members on both sides of the House will share my concern about the overnight news that a curfew has been imposed and that a shoot-on-sight policy is effectively in operation. Four people have been killed, and hundreds have been hurt. Our two countries have a great history. As a former member of the Brigade of Gurkhas, I have many friends in Nepal, and I received e-mails this morning telling of the horrors in that country. We therefore need a statement, because the Government have been quiet on the subject to date.

Geoff Hoon: I visited Nepal to see how Gurkhas are recruited, and excellent standards are maintained there. A great friendship exists as a result between the British Army and the British people and the people of Nepal. The situation is a matter of grave concern to the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is actively concerned to try to reduce tension and violence, which the Government will continue to monitor very closely.

Angus MacNeil: Given that the definition of the Greek word, "philanthropy", is "performing a charitable action"—it is not a trading arrangement for peerages—and given the growing number of signatures on the petition at Westminster.com, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Department for Constitutional Affairs to make a an urgent statement to confirm or otherwise that there will be a moratorium on the awarding of new peerages until the issue of cash for peerages is resolved?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs recently answered a series of detailed questions before the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, so the House has had the opportunity to hear him speak about the present position. Hon. Members will be aware that a police investigation into the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman is under way, so in the circumstances it is not appropriate for me to comment further.

Public Protection

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about further measures that the Government intend to take to protect the public from dangerous offenders.
	In my statement on 28 February, following the publication of the report by the chief inspector of probation on the appalling murder of John Monckton, I made it clear that, although we have already made improvements to our system for public protection and will continue to do so, we have to do more to improve the way in which we identify and manage dangerous offenders who present a risk to the public. I announced that the Government would accept the main findings and the key recommendations of the chief inspector's report. Today, I have placed in the Library of the House a probation circular that requires chief officers to implement those recommendations and the 31 "practice" recommendations that were set out in the report. Arrangements will be made to audit implementation in July and again in October this year.
	Action on those recommendations is not enough, so I propose to take new powers to enable dangerous and high-risk offenders to be better managed, as well as to strengthen the work of the Parole Board and the probation service. The Government need to provide the framework in which the probation service and other criminal justice agencies can do their job to the highest standards. We have already made changes to the sentencing regime to ensure that dangerous offenders who pose a continuing risk can be detained indefinitely if a court so determines. Those arrangements apply to all eligible offenders who commit offences after the new provisions came into force—that is, offences committed on or after 4 April 2005.
	I have looked very carefully to see how we can increase safeguards in respect of offenders who committed their offences before that date. I considered whether it would be possible to make the more dangerous offenders subject to the new public protection sentences, notwithstanding the date of their offence. I concluded that it would not, as it would violate the principle of retrospective legislation, and the House would be likely to find that unacceptable. However, I consider that three further steps are necessary. First, I have decided to ensure that offenders who have been sentenced to imprisonment for offences committed before 4 April 2005 are on licence from the moment that they are released from custody until the very end of their sentence, rather than to the three-quarters point of their sentence as now. That means that offenders who give cause for concern at any time during the currency of their sentence can be recalled to prison.
	I will introduce that change by means of an order under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which will be laid before the House and the other place as soon as possible. The aim is to focus active supervision on those dangerous offenders who pose the most risk of harm and who will be actively and intensively supervised until the end of their sentence. That step is not enough in itself. There are some offenders who do not cease to be a risk to the public just because their licence has come to an end. Secondly, therefore, we must be able to deal with such offenders. There is a strong case for introducing a violent offender order along the same lines that have proved effective in the case of sex offenders. Such an order would enable the court to make specific prohibitions on offenders who have been convicted of offences of violence, breach of which would be a criminal offence subject to up to five years in prison. I will publish proposals in that area before summer.
	Thirdly, I acknowledge that many dangerous offenders suffer from mental disorder. The plans that we recently announced to amend mental health legislation will help to ensure that mentally disordered offenders receive the treatment that they need and that the risk that they pose to the public is minimised. I am confident that those proposals, together with the reforms that I set out in my five-year strategy for protecting the public and reducing re-offending—in particular, the introduction of a single named offender manager for all offenders, coupled with my proposals to drive up performance by introducing alternative providers of services and challenging the probation service to demonstrate that it can and does meet the highest standards—will help to improve the way in which dangerous offenders are managed. Of course, no risk can ever be eliminated, but we need to do much better in minimising risks.
	Accurate assessment of risk must lie at the heart of our public protection arrangements. It is essential that staff are clear about their responsibilities and are properly trained. With immediate effect, all chief officers of probation will have a specific objective to improve the quality of risk-of-harm assessments in their area, and they will be required to provide regular reports. In addition, almost all probation middle managers throughout the country—there are about 1,400—have undergone a rigorous training programme to improve the quality of risk-of-harm assessments and the way in which they manage such cases. In June, we will introduce a new training tool further to improve the way in which staff assess and manage risk.
	Still more needs to be done to improve the risk assessment process itself, so I have commissioned the National Offender Management Service risk of harm improvement board to undertake an urgent exercise, with independent input as necessary, to achieve that. I have issued guidance to both prisons and probation staff to highlight the need to avoid over emphasis on good behaviour in prison and to make progress in addressing dynamic risk factors when assessing risk prior to release. The Parole Board—an independent body charged with the task of deciding whether offenders are safe to be released—has a crucial role to play in assessing risk. New minimum standards for the reports prepared for the Parole Board have been introduced and new monitoring arrangements came into force at the beginning of the month. Urgent work is in hand to ensure that the board has available to it all the relevant information that it needs to ensure that its decisions are well founded.
	In addition to these measures, the chairman of the Parole Board has also informed me of his plans to appoint senior and well respected independent figures to the panel that reviews cases involving serious further offences, to ensure that lessons are properly identified and learned. I welcome this move, too.
	More generally, it is the role of all agencies within the criminal justice system to prioritise public protection through partnership working, which is why Her Majesty's inspectors of probation, prisons and constabulary are conducting a joint thematic inspection of the effectiveness of public protection arrangements. I will report back to the House on any further recommendations that stem from this report when it is published this summer.
	Taken together, I believe these measures represent an important step forward in protecting the public. Implementation of the improvement package will be overseen by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Criminal Justice and Offender Management. I commend the proposals to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of his statement. Much of what he said is welcome and constructive. However, it is the first duty of the Government to protect the public, and clearly they and their actions have not protected the public on too many occasions in recent times. Failure of Government policy has been a contributing factor in the tragic deaths of Marian Bates, John Monckton, Robert Symons and Mary-Ann Leneghan, among others—all murdered by criminals on early release, parole or probation.
	It is no surprise that the Government are announcing the order this week, just before the killers of Mary-Ann Leneghan are sentenced and a report on the murder of Naomi Bryant, which is expected to be extremely damning, is published. This is the latest in a series of tough-sounding measures that the Home Secretary has announced this week, which are designed to catch theheadlines and pre-empt the reports of the Government's failure.
	The problem that the Home Secretary's new order seeks to address is largely of the Government's own making. It has been the Government's policy to release dangerous offenders into the community on early release. The Daily Mail reports the chief inspector of probation as saying that there are 15,000 offenders on probation who are assessed as representing a high or a very high risk of causing harm to others.
	It was the Government who cut the Parole Board's budget for face-to-face interviews by 90 per cent. two years ago. Yusuf Bouhaddaou, who murdered Robert Symons just five weeks after being released from prison, was released with no face-to-face interview. Instead, he had just a 25-minute telephone conversation with the probation service.
	It was the Government who introduced OASYS, the offender assessment system that the National Association of Probation Officers has described as "poorly designed", with its prime purpose being to
	"produce data for the Home Office, rather than analysing the behaviour of offenders".
	If we look at each of the appalling murders committed by offenders on probation, early release and parole—Mary-Ann Leneghan, John Monckton, Marian Bates, Robert Symons and others—one point is clear: if the offenders had been in prison, those crimes would not have been committed.
	So what are the Government proposing to address   their own failures? Although, astonishingly, the Home Secretary did not mention it in his statement, pre-briefing by the Home Office stated that they would increase the number of face-to-face interviews prior to release to 30 per cent. Is that true? Even if it is, an astonishing 70 per cent. of prisoners will still not have a face-to-face interview before release. What extra resources is the Home Secretary providing to the probation service, which we are told is already overstretched? Will he increase the interview budget, which was cut by 90 per cent. two years ago?
	The Home Secretary says he wants to impose restrictions on violent offenders and, presumably, ban them from approaching certain people or places, but prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme have committed over 7,000 further offences already. In 2004–05 alone, 224 offenders on probation were convicted of further serious offences, including 26 murders—I repeat, 26 murders. A criminal who is willing to murder or to commit armed robbery or burglary will not be put off by some sort of super-ASBO. If 42 per cent. of antisocial behaviour orders are ignored by young tearaways, how effective will the so-called super-ASBOs be against psychopathic hardened criminals? If the Government cannot make the sex offenders register work properly, how safe should the public feel after this latest headline-grabbing initiative?
	The Government's proposals fail to address the real problems in the probation service, which is in desperate need of effective leadership and management from the Government. What does the Home Secretary have to say to Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers, who says that the probation service is already poorly resourced and massively overstretched? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary laughs. Damien Hanson, who murdered John Monckton, was assessed as being 91 per cent. likely to reoffend, yet he was released halfway through a 12-year sentence for attempted murder. The Home Secretary's proposal fails to address the underlying problems in the probation service that allowed that to happen. Is he proposing any further legislation with respect to the National Offender Management Service, which remains only half reformed?
	The Government have failed to address the problem of prison overcrowding, which means that prisoners are not getting the rehabilitation that they require. How do the Government intend to solve that problem? Let us be clear. The latest spate of murders is just the latest symptom of a major failure in the criminal justice system—a failure by the Government of policy, strategy, leadership and management. The measures smack of a policy designed primarily to relieve the pressure on overcrowded prisons, rather than protecting the public. With 15,000 dangerous offenders back on our streets, let us hope it does not result in yet more victims of crime and yet more families devastated by murder.

Charles Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman started well by saying that he welcomed the proposal and wished to be constructive about it. His allegations are demeaning and misleading. Let us go through the points in detail.
	The right hon. Gentleman's first allegation was that the announcement was some sort of initiative to catch the headlines, rather than a substantive measure to address the issue. As I said in my statement and as he should have had the grace to acknowledge, immediately upon the announcement of the verdict in the Monckton case, which had the appalling results that he described in the case of Hanson, I asked the chief inspector of probation to go through in detail what was done wrong in relation to that case and how to put it right. I published that report extremely rapidly, and I announced today that we are carrying through in specified ways measures to stop what the right hon. Gentleman correctly defines as a terrible, appalling case, the Hanson case, happening again.
	Secondly, at the time that I announced the outcome of the Bridges report, I said that despite its recommendations, which were important and would be implemented, it necessarily fell short in certain important respects, and I would return to the House, as I am doing today, to say what further steps we would take. To suggest that this is some kind of spun response is demeaning and unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman.
	There are three core issues. In each area we have made major improvements since the time of the Government with whom the right hon. Gentleman served and held office. First, with regard to the sentencing regimes, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 established the means, which did not exist under the Government of whom he was a member, of controlling people sentenced under that regime who are dangerous to society, and at any point recalling to prison people who are dangerous to the public. That does not solve problems arising from sentences before 2003, but it is a major advance, which will make a difference. Today we are announcing further measures to deal with people sentenced before that time.
	Secondly, on the risk assessment regime, it is critical that professionals can assess the risks associated with individuals who commit appalling crimes, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his demeaning remarks about OASYS and the multi-agency public protection arrangements. It is an internationally recognised system, which is being introduced in a way that was never considered by his Government. It is improving the system and will improve it further, to deal with the issues properly. That is what we are doing and what he never did.
	Thirdly, once the assessment has been carried out, the question arises how we properly manage people thought to be a risk in those circumstances. Once again, we are introducing major changes to do that, including focusing the professional resource of probation staff on those who are most dangerous, which is why we will publish further legislation on the contestability agenda as I described. My comment to Harry Fletcher and the National Association of Probation Officers, whom the right hon. Gentleman entertainingly chucks into the discussion, is that resources are important and that we have put more resources in—much more than under his Government—but change and reform to the way we run our probation system are also important. We make the changes to protect the public better. That is what we are committed to do.

Martin Salter: Given that four of the six individuals convicted of the horrific murder of Mary-Ann Leneghan in my constituency were under the supervision of the probation service, the Home Secretary's announcement is welcome. However, none of those young men had been subject to early release, and I deplore the attempt by the shadow Home Secretary to make political capital out of a horrible episode. Only one of those individuals, Adrian Thomas, had convictions for serious and violent offences. Incredibly, that man, who kidnapped and tortured a 13-year-old boy before murdering Mary-Ann Leneghan, received only a community rehabilitation order in 2004. Will the Home Secretary accept that the courts should take a long, hard look at the sentences that they hand out to dangerous individuals, because those sentences are currently far too soft?

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's final point and pay tribute to the way in which he has taken up that appalling case in his constituency. I have listened carefully to his comments, which are based on what he has learned from the community that he represents. We need better sentencing regimes, which we have established, and we need the courts to carry them through. We also need proper risk assessments, and we are putting them in place. Earlier, I decided not to respond to the shadow Home Secretary's gratuitous remarks about the early release scheme, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has pointed out that to confuse those issues, which are real, with the issues at stake in the Mary-Ann Leneghan case is dishonourable and discreditable.

Nicholas Clegg: I too thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in providing an advance copy of the statement. There is no easy solution to the problems that we face, and Liberal Democrat Members will support any constructive or workable proposals to improve public safety against the actions of dangerous offenders. The Home Secretary will remember that we supported the Government in 2003, when they sought to create a new indefinite sentence for the most dangerous individuals, and I agree with his acknowledgment today that the new powers cannot be used retrospectively.
	I broadly welcome the package of alternative measures outlined in the Home Secretary's statement. The proposal to extend post-custody supervision for those sentenced before April 2005 is particularly welcome, as are all attempts to improve the assessment of risk. According to Andrew Bridges, the chief inspector of probation, only 20 per cent. of offenders who go on to commit serious offences while on parole were assessed as being high risk.
	The statement leaves two questions unanswered. First, is the new system of early release really providing the maximum protection for the public? In the debates in this House during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the rules on early release were changed in the teeth of opposition from both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members. Before the implementation of the 2003 Act, the Parole Board had discretion whether to release long-term prisoners at the 50 per cent. point of their sentence and, if there was a reasonable concern about public safety, release could be delayed until the two-thirds point. The 2003 Act removed that discretion from the Parole Board. In view of the cases that have been cited today, will the Home Secretary agree to review that change?
	Secondly, how much will the increase in supervision cost, and how many additional probation officers will be needed? A key problem faced by probation staff and by those involved in multi-agency public protection arrangements is how to apportion scarce resources, which is compounded in turn by a desperately overcrowded prison system in which staff often do not have time to assess individuals properly. What will the Home Secretary do to tackle the severe underlying problems of an overcrowded prison system and an overloaded probation service?
	We will, of course, respond constructively and in detail to the Home Secretary's proposals on violent offender orders later in the summer. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that before that step is taken there will be a proper evaluation of the success of sexual offences prevention orders, which would appear to be the model that the Home Secretary has in mind?

Charles Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for our proposals. I appreciate his constructive approach, and I shall deal with his points in the order in which he raised them.
	I have said that I will publish proposals on the violent offender order before the summer because I want precisely to evaluate the way in which the sex offender regime has worked and to examine any good points. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a proper evaluation will take place.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that early release should be reviewed in the context of the proposals, and I am discussing the issue with the Parole Board and others. He will recall that the system that we have established was an attempt to focus on the greatest danger to the community, which is our precise ambition for the five-year strategy and the contestability agenda. This may be asking too much, but perhaps he will consider constructively our proposals in that area, which are designed to ensure that the professionalism of the probation service is focused on the areas in which it can be most accurately applied.
	On costs and prison overcrowding, which are extremely serious issues, more resources are needed for training and support on the difficult decisions that highly professional staff have to take—in general, staff make those decisions very successfully. Within the probation and prison system, which needs to be well led and managed, we need to focus existing resources on the most challenging cases, which will require some of the changes that I have described. A range of different measures is needed to address those questions rather than simply more resources.

Chris Bryant: I welcome the Home Secretary's announcements today and hope that they will lead to greater protection for the public, not least because it must surely be wrong that the system has put the public at unnecessary risk in a series of individual cases.
	As for psychiatric provision, most psychiatrists would say that paranoid schizophrenia, which leads to much of the violent psychotic behaviour that we are discussing, has no known effective and reliable treatment. Can one imprison somebody for a crime that they might possibly commit? Can we make a realistic judgment whether someone is mad or bad, and how can we reliably introduce such judgments into the criminal justice system?

Charles Clarke: The answer is that such judgments are very difficult, but existing mental health legislation allows us to make them in some cases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will introduce carefully prepared legislation on that matter later this year, and I hope that it will provide the protection mentioned by my hon. Friend. The 2003 Act contains a power to detain indefinitely people who are a danger to the public, which also relates to his point. The core point is that we must acknowledge the difficulty of identifying the people who really pose a risk. We should not imply that that task is easy or routine, because it is exceptionally difficult and demands professionalism from those involved. We must encourage and support that professionalism and learn how better to conduct the task.

Robert Wilson: As the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) has said, four of the six men who brutalised, tortured and murdered my constituent, Mary-Ann Leneghan, were under the supervision of the criminal justice system, which ultimately betrayed her. The Home Secretary is proposing "to take new powers to enable dangerous and high-risk offenders to be better managed, as well as to strengthen the work of the Parole Board and the probation service". I welcome the moves to strengthen the Parole Board and the probation service, but my constituents want to know whether dangerous criminals will be locked up, which would be a fitting epitaph for Mary-Ann Leneghan and reassure her family.

Charles Clarke: The short answer to that question is yes. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that a number of measures are required. We must ensure that the current procedures are carried out properly. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) rightly said about the Monckton murder, there is clear evidence in that case and, I think, the Mary-Ann Leneghan case that the procedures that should have been followed properly were not followed properly, which led to tragic consequences. That state of affairs is scandalous, and it is being addressed by the measures that I have set out. Above and beyond that, there is the question whether the procedures and approaches are appropriate in such cases and whether we need to change and improve performance—I believe that we do, which is why I have made my statement today. Finally, there is the question of how to deal with people whom we deem to be dangerous. The 2003 Act allows us to take the action that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and the measures that I have set out today will strengthen our capacity in that area.

Ian Lucas: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and note that it will require still closer working relationships between prisons and the probation service in the community. I know from my recent discussions and meetings with the north Wales probation service that there is great concern locally that the proposal for an all-Wales probation service does not take sufficient account of the fact that there are no prisons in north Wales and that services from the north-west will not be as closely integrated as they are at present. Will my right hon. Friend consider those concerns carefully and ensure that they are properly addressed in future?

Charles Clarke: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will consider the question carefully. I go beyond that to say that he is right that the continuity of approach between prisons and probation in an end-to-end offender management system is absolutely essential and that that requires the person-institution relationship to be very close. He has made the case in this House and elsewhere, as have others, regarding concerns about the reorganisation of police and probation on to an all-Wales basis. I assure him that the concerns that he expressed can be properly dealt with in terms of the necessary change that we are making.

Douglas Hogg: The Home Secretary's concept of a violent offender order may well have merit—we will look at the detail when the legislation is published—but may I make a wider point? Persons like myself who practise in the criminal courts, often deal with violent offenders, and have to consider whether they have a propensity to commit future violence, know that one of the problems is that they are often unemployable because they are addicted to drink or drugs or lack employment potential by reason of poor education or lack of relevant skills. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Prison Service must place yet greater weight on tackling addiction of various kinds and on providing education and employment skills, and that his violent offender orders should be shaped in such a way as to enable that to continue after release from prison?

Charles Clarke: I find myself in the utterly extraordinary position of agreeing with absolutely every word that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He is right to say that dealing with addiction and rehabilitation—particularly as regards drugs but also in other areas—is critically important; that is why such provision has been dramatically expanded. He is also right to make the link to employment. About three months ago, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Work and Pensions and I jointly published proposals to develop the relationship between employment and people in the criminal justice system. I am simply delighted to agree with every word that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says.

Julie Morgan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and his efforts to protect the public in this very difficult area. I particularly welcome the creation of the violent offender order and his comments about mental health. I am sure that he will accept, as we all do, that risk cannot ever be completely eliminated and that it would be unrealistic to think so. These proposals will make much more specific demands on the probation service and probably require more resources for it to carry them out. Will he comment on that?

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. She is of course right to say that risk can never be completely eliminated. It is important to say that, because some people seem to believe that it is ultimately possible to do so. It is necessary to minimise risk, however, and that is what our proposals do by putting in not only resources, but advocating change and reform to the way that we do this work.

Andrew MacKay: Can the Home Secretary now answer the important question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—why is it that in 90 per cent. of cases, potentially dangerous criminals who are leaving prison do not have a one-to-one, face-to-face interview, and when will that change?

Charles Clarke: I do not think that the figure is as high as 90 per cent., but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given me the chance to answer the question. There are two issues: first, face-to-face interviews with probation officers as people leave prison; and secondly, face-to-face interviews by the Parole Board as it makes its decisions about what to do. It is our policy to ensure face-to-face interviews with probation officers for all people coming up for parole. That does not always happen, as the right hon. Gentleman says, but our policy is to reach 100 per cent.
	As for the Parole Board panel's assessment of particular individuals, there has been some controversy over the past two or three years about the extent to which face-to-face interviews should take place. Some of that is based on professional grounds as to whether it is the best way of dealing with the case, and some of it is based on resources grounds. I discussed this some weeks ago with Sir Duncan Nichol, the chairman of the Parole Board. I said that I want to be clear about the professional basis, and then whatever resources are necessary will be made available to the Parole Board to do what needs to be done.
	On the first point—interviews with probation staff as people leave prison—the right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. We are taking the 100 per cent. route, but there is a journey to travel, although it is not as far as he says. Parole Board interviews are a matter of professional judgment about the right way to make those assessments, with face-to-face interviews being part of that process.

Vincent Cable: I accept the Home Secretary's basic point that reform and resources need to go together, but cannot he give even a ballpark estimate of the additional resources that will be available to the probation service to deal with the additional tasks required of it, particularly given that the Chancellor's projections and priorities suggest that there will be a real-terms cut in future Home Office spending?

Charles Clarke: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's last remark, because it is not true. The Chancellor made it clear in his Budget statement that during the next comprehensive spending review, the Home Office budget would maintain a zero real-terms position. That was a good settlement that reflects the needs of public expenditure as opposed to the existing service. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that it is a real-terms cut. We have not yet taken final decisions on the allocation of resources within that Home Office envelope, but the resource demands that we are discussing will be part of that. It is important for the probation service to concentrate at the moment on deciding where it should best focus its professional resources in carrying out those responsibilities. That discussion needs to go side by side with the overall discussion on resources.

Gregory Campbell: I associate my colleagues and myself with the Home Secretary's statement and give our support in principle, although we await the detail.
	Last week in the High Court in Northern Ireland, a person was convicted of the murder of Attracta Harron, a senior citizen. That person had previously been convicted of a very serious sexual assault. The conviction was accompanied by a sentence that was widely regarded as being lenient. It was appealed and increased after the person was released upon serving the original sentence. Four months later, the body of Attracta Harron was found, and he was subsequently convicted of her murder. The police said after last week's court case that that man was the most closely monitored released prisoner in Northern Ireland. What will the new provisions do to protect the wider public from convicted murderers such as the person who murdered Attracta Harron?

Charles Clarke: First, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support in principle. Secondly, I am not going to comment on specific cases, but I know that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and his Department are looking carefully at the case that he mentions, taking account of the opinions that he expressed about it in the context of my statement and with a view to seeing how they interrelate in the best way. Thirdly, we would be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman's party on these matters to see how we can establish the best regime that will deal with these matters consistently.

Tony Baldry: This week, a person was convicted of murdering two patients in Banbury and causing grievous harm to several others. That reinforces the Secretary of State's point that many dangerous offenders have mental health needs. There is obviously an overlap, with many such people going into prison for long stretches of time. Can he assure the House that before violent offenders are released on licence or parole, they will be assessed for their mental health needs, that it will be a condition that they co-operate with any appropriate mental health treatment, and that if they do not, that will be classed as a breach of parole? The danger is that such individuals are looked after by the parole system but are lost to the mental health system when they leave prison. At that point, there needs to be a handover from the Prison Service to the mental health service. I hope that I have made that clear to the Secretary of State.

Charles Clarke: In principle, the hon. Gentleman is correct. However, the practicality is a matter of concern, which the Secretary of State for Health, other colleagues and I are discussing carefully to ascertain how we can improve matters. The relationship has not always been as smooth as it needs to be, as the hon. Gentleman said. We are considering how we can deal with such issues more profoundly in the context of our departmental work, the new proposed legislation that the Department of Health will introduce and the comprehensive spending review. That is one of the reasons why simple statements about the prison population are not necessarily especially helpful. A large proportion of the prison population has mental health needs, and the Secretary of State for Health and I agree that there is a good argument for perhaps dealing with that in better ways, if we could find such ways and have a proper assessment regime. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right in principle, but, in saying that, I do not want to imply that there is not much difficulty in practice.

David Davies: Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be far more effective to fire the head of the probation service, who has failed us, build more prisons and end the disgraceful practice of releasing people halfway through their sentences, thus enabling them to embark on a trail of rape, robbery, mugging and murder? When will he stop all forms of early release and make our streets safer?

Charles Clarke: I do not agree with that assessment.

Philip Davies: The Home Secretary's statement is too little, too late. Since home detention curfews were introduced, 7,000 crimes have been committed by people who are out on a tag, and more than 1,500 people released on parole have committed further crimes since 1997. Does not the Home Secretary understand that those crimes would not have occurred if those people were in prison? They include a convicted murderer who was let out into my constituency and recently convicted again of abducting and raping a young boy. Surely the time has come for prisoners to serve their sentences in full.

Charles Clarke: As I said earlier, the statement is not about home detention curfew arrangements, though I note that the Opposition supported those proposals when the House first considered them. However, the statement is about protecting the population from dangerous offenders. I believe that we are strengthening that protection, and we shall continue to do so.

David Burrowes: Would not the public feel properly protected if they knew that offenders released from prison were not still addicted to drugs? What steps will be taken to eradicate access to drugs in prison?

Charles Clarke: The short answer is yes, they would. That is why we have the most substantial programme of drug rehabilitation in our history. It includes a massive expansion of treatment to an extent that was not thought of under the Conservative Government, and a regime of requirement by law, which we have changed, for people to have drug rehabilitation treatment. We are not there yet, but we are making progress, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support in implementing that policy even more strongly.

Sammy Wilson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) in welcoming the statement, which many will interpret as an admission by the Secretary of State of the failure of the sentencing, remission and parole polices that have been followed to date. However, I welcome the fact that there is now some action or at least the promise of it. He gave an assurance that the measures would apply to Northern Ireland. In the light of the outcry in the Attracta Harron case, how will the measures be resourced? Proper monitoring will require additional resources.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for that general support, if that was what it was. I repeat the comments that I made to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell): I am keen to work with hon. Members on the matter, in conjunction with my Northern Ireland colleagues. We need a regime that is as consistent as possible and we shall discuss that constructively.

BILL PRESENTED

Northern Ireland

Mr. Secretary Hain, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke and Mr. David Hanson, presented a Bill to make provision for preparations for the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland and for the selection of persons to be Ministers on such restoration; to make provision as to the consequences of selecting or not selecting such persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 24 April, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 169].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

(Clauses 1 to 7, 10 to 12, 19 to 22 and Schedule 2, and any new clauses and schedules other than those relating to Parts 2 or 4)
	Considered in Committee [Progress, 19 April].

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

Clause 19
	 — 
	Department with policing and justice functions

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 13, line 41, leave out 'and justice'.
	It is a delight to be back in the Chamber to discuss the Bill, and I am sure that the Minister shares those sentiments. He had a lively and enjoyable time yesterday, so I am sure he was impatient to get today's business under way.
	Clause 19 is the central feature of the Bill and proposes the devolution of policing and justice to Northern Ireland. It was the measure's original core, around which all the other miscellaneous elements have been wrapped to give the clause some cover and the Bill some substance.
	As drafted, the clause is curious because it provides that
	"if an Act of the Assembly . . . establishes a new Northern Ireland department; and . . . the purpose of the Department is to exercise functions consisting wholly or mainly of devolved policing and justice functions",
	there will be two options. If the Assembly decides that policing and justice is to be devolved to it, the clause proposes that either two Ministers "acting jointly" should look after only one Department or that one Minister with a junior Minister should do it and rotate every six months.
	I would dearly appreciate an explanation from the Minister of how we have reached the presumption that there will be only one Department.

David Hanson: The Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for several models. The clause proposes two additional models, but a range of options already exists. We are not trying to restrict options for the Assembly to determine.

Lady Hermon: The Minister must clarify exactly what he means by that intervention. Does he mean that there is a range of options for Ministers to act jointly or every six months? The reason for the amendment is that I would like the Minister to articulate why policing and justice should be devolved to one Department.

David Hanson: The 1998 Act already allows for separate Departments, if the Assembly chooses that option. The Bill provides for two additional models, which the 1998 Act does not cover.

Lady Hermon: The amendment aims to discover what is in the minds of those in the Northern Ireland Office, if that is possible—it varies from month to month and sometimes from one week to the next. We have separate Departments for England and Wales—the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which covers justice issues, and the Home Office. We have just heard a statement from the Home Secretary. Is one of those separate Departments the Northern Ireland Office's preference, or is it completely neutral about the matter? The Minister indicates that he is entirely neutral. That is a happy outcome. Given that there are two separate Departments in England and Wales and Ministers are not required to act jointly or swap places every six months, it is a little odd that that could happen in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: It might help the hon. Lady to know that we are entirely neutral on which form of devolution—should it exist—the Northern Ireland Assembly should introduce. The Bill provides two models that at present are not available to the Assembly, but we are neutral; it is for the Assembly to determine how it proceeds.

Lady Hermon: I am exceedingly grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention.
	As that matter seems to be resolved, let us think about the long term. If policing functions were devolved to a Department—or two Departments, if the Assembly so chose—what would be the implications for the Policing Board? The board was the creation of the Patten committee and its report, and in the absence of an Assembly with devolved policing functions it was given political accountability by Members of the Legislative Assembly serving on it. However, in a new scenario in which policing is devolved to the Assembly—I hope that we shall see that one day—I presume that there will be a committee of Assembly Members to scrutinise policing. The Minister—or perhaps the two Ministers—will therefore be accountable to, and have their actions scrutinised by, that committee. What long-term impact would that have on the Policing Board and its composition? I would appreciate an answer from the Minister, who seems to have addressed the other issues. Will it be up to the Assembly to establish whether one or two Departments are involved? Will policing and justice powers be devolved at the same time, or will one be devolved ahead of the other?

David Hanson: I hope that my earlier comments about the amendment satisfied the hon. Lady. The Government's purpose is to ensure that when the Assembly judges the time to be right to seek the devolution of policing and justice powers it can implement whichever model it concludes is appropriate. The amendment would have run counter to that purpose, because it would have restricted the number of options available to the Assembly rather than enhancing it. The Government believe that the Assembly should choose whether it has two Departments, how it runs them and how accountability to the Assembly is determined.
	The hon. Lady made an important point about the Policing Board. She will note that paragraph 4.5 of the discussion paper, "Devolving Policing and Justice in Northern Ireland", which we published earlier this year, stresses the importance of considering the political oversight of policing and whether any Assembly committee performs that role. That will need to be considered in the light of the Assembly's wishes. The Patten recommendations set out key roles for the Policing Board, on which a number of MLAs are represented. The document states:
	"Providing clear lines of accountability will be important to ensuring the system works well."
	It will be up to the Assembly to consider those matters.

Peter Robinson: Under the options that the Minister has provided, if the Assembly were to decide to devolve policing and justice matters to one Department, would that Department have to be part of the overall bidding under d'Hondt, or could it be dealt with separately?

David Hanson: I would imagine that it would be as normal under d'Hondt, but I will check on that.

Mark Durkan: I think that the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) lies in some of the clauses and schedules that we are about to deal with. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Patten report—which, as he rightly said, established the Policing Board—dealt with the devolution of justice and policing powers, and stated that steps would have to be taken to protect the integrity of such structures as the Policing Board, to ensure that devolution did not have adverse implications for its role?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. In principle, devolution will be undertaken when the Assembly wants it, when the Government agree to it and when the House of Commons votes for it. The Assembly has the freedom to consider whatever model it wishes, and the Bill will add models to those set out in the 1998 Act for the Assembly's consideration. The position of the Policing Board needs to be examined, and the future of any Assembly committee overseeing policing will need to be considered in the light of the important role played by the board.
	I can confirm that d'Hondt will be the method used for the single Minister option, if that is chosen. I hope that that answers the question put by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. I am greatly encouraged by his closing remarks, in which he said that clause 19 gave "freedom" to the Assembly to decide which model it wants to use, whether to have one or two Departments, and which provisions of policing and justice ought to be devolved to it.
	In the light of the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and the Minister's response to it, I would like the Minister to reflect again on the impact of these measures on the Policing Board. If there were a scrutiny committee in the Assembly to look after policing, on which MLAs would serve, as well as the Policing Board, on which other MLAs serve, there could be rivalry and claims of superiority between the two. That is a really serious issue.

Stephen Pound: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I was perturbed to see her name misspelled in yesterday's Hansard. I can assure her that none of us in the House is in any doubt about who she is, despite the fact that somebody cannot spell.
	The hon. Lady seems to be raising two separate points in regard to her amendment. On the first substantive point, does she not agree that the joint declaration of 2003 did in fact provide for these alternative models? Is it not a good thing to give freedom to the very people who should be organising the affairs of the people of Northern Ireland, so that they may be allowed to do so?

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention, and I am delighted that he has put on record the fact that the misspelling of my name worried him so much that it caused him a sleepless night—

Sammy Wilson: And he actually read the Hansard.

Lady Hermon: That is even more impressive.
	The point of my amendment was to ask the Minister to clarify the wording of the Bill. Clause 19 and subsequent provisions always refer to
	"a new Northern Ireland department".
	That implies that there will be only one Department.

Mark Durkan: I have listened to the hon. Lady's comments on her proposed amendment, and to her concern about the implications for the role of the Policing Board and its possible duplication by a departmental committee. Would her amendment not compound the problem? If the only role of the Department and the committee were to oversee policing and not wider justice issues, the problem that she describes would definitely arise.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. That is precisely what I needed to find out from the Minister. It seemed to me, when I read the Bill, that I had missed the entire discussion on whether there was to be simultaneous devolution of policing and justice to a single Department in Northern Ireland. That is what appears in the Bill, and my purpose in tabling this probing amendment was to discover the words that the Minister would use to justify the drafting of clause 19. I am not prescribing my preference.
	Having said that, I am reminded of the fact that the Belfast agreement establishes that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I am therefore concerned that justice and criminal law issues will be devolved to the Assembly. Antisocial behaviour orders might be withdrawn in Northern Ireland, for example. I am worried about policing and justice powers being devolved at the same time, because we have two separate Departments in England and Wales to deal with those issues, and they do not necessarily integrate or sit easily together. However, the Minister has given the House an assurance that clause 19 gives "freedom" to the Assembly to choose the format, the timing and the combination of powers that it wishes to see devolved.

David Hanson: Clause 19 gives freedom to the Assembly in conjunction with the 1998 Act, which includes several potential models.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for confirming that clause 19 gives freedom to the Assembly in conjunction with the 1998 Act, with which I am perfectly content—the 108 Assembly Members are entitled to make up their minds about the Department's configuration. With that assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 4, at end insert—
	'(   ) The Act may provide for the department to be in the charge of the First and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in page 14, line 5, at end insert—
	'(aa) for the department to be in the charge of the First and Deputy First Minister supported by junior Ministers;'.

Laurence Robertson: These too are probing amendments. The Bill as it stands allows for the Assembly to provide that the new police and justice department be in the charge of two Northern Ireland Ministers acting jointly or a Northern Ireland Minister supported by junior Ministers, and for them to rotate. My amendments would give the Assembly the power to provide for the Department to be in the charge of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly and/or the First Minister and Deputy First Minister supported by junior Ministers.
	The reasoning behind the amendments is twofold. First, the Department will be of such importance that putting it in the charge of the most senior Ministers in Northern Ireland should rightly be an option. Secondly, that kind of arrangement could provide cross-community control of policing and justice with all the necessary checks and balances in place. I feel that that would have the potential to give at least some confidence to both communities.
	I will not press the amendments to a vote, and I will not detain the Committee long on them. The option was in the discussion paper circulated a while ago, and I was a little surprised that it did not find its way into the Bill. Since the amendments were tabled, the Minister has been kind enough to assure me that it is covered in the 1998 Act. I would like his assurance that the situation that I describe is a possibility should policing and justice be devolved.

Mark Durkan: I note that the amendments are probing. Obviously, were they included in the Bill, they would make the devolved policing and justice powers part of the portfolio of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I know that that was one of the options on the menu that might be considered in party discussions, but I can advise Members, as someone who has served in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, that it would be a most unwelcome and unhelpful arrival in that Department. It would not assist the competent performance of the Department at large, and it would add unduly to the burden of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and handicap the good conduct of those devolved responsibilities.
	I do not fret about the absence of that option. The significance of the Bill setting out some options is that it raises questions: if such matters are to be the subject of agreement by the parties, does not it make sense to ask the parties to have those discussions, reach agreement and then legislate on known outcomes? We have seen some of the folly and futility of legislating for all sorts of potential options, which then turn out not to be needed and are withdrawn subsequently or overtaken by other legislation.
	I note that the d'Hondt option is available for appointing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, or the Assembly can decide not to appoint by the d'Hondt system. Of course, under the Bill, that decision would be entirely under the control of Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party—no doubt a marriage made in heaven. They, through their control of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and of the voting mechanism proposed in the Bill, would determine that entirely. An option of joint Ministers and rotating junior Ministers is given, but no option is given for the Assembly to say that it will be outside the d'Hondt system and that the Assembly will elect, through cross-community support, a single Minister. In discussions, the parties might agree that they want to go for that option. The House could therefore find itself having to legislate for another option in future—unless, of course, there has been prior agreement on some of the options under consideration.
	Many of us have questions about that. Martin McGuinness tells us that the whole question of how and what things were to be transferred was done and dusted in the negotiations leading up to the so-called comprehensive agreement of December 2004. With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), we know that we did not see everything that was agreed in the comprehensive agreement of December 2004, because the documents published were accompanied by up to 100 different side-notes, letters and clarifications. Does that cover some of how devolution of justice and policing was to be handled and transacted? Does it mean that there has been a prior agreement involving Sinn Fein and the DUP about some of the models? If not, surely the likelihood is that we will face new legislation to provide for what is agreed in the future? If Democratic Unionist Members are going to tell us that none of that is agreed, and none of it will matter, why is the Committee being asked to pass this legislation?
	The answer, as I said on Second Reading, is that we are being asked to deal with parts of the Bill that are something between a figment and a fig leaf. They are in the Bill to create a pretence that it is securing as a fact the devolution of justice and policing, so that Sinn Fein can pretend that there has been some significant new gain or development and then modify its position and language on policing. The fact is that the power to devolve justice and policing already exists. It is in the 1998 Act. The Bill only gives us options as to the furniture arrangement for the devolution of justice and policing. It does not take us substantively on to the devolution of justice and policing.
	In fact, some of the models proposed in the Bill could delay delivery of the devolution of justice and policing, as, contrary to how Sinn Fein will present the passing of the legislation, the mechanisms in the Bill—which Democratic Unionist Members indicated they did not see—effectively provide a multiple lock on any prospect of the transfer of justice and policing, as well as on who can be appointed. We will make further points about that on future clauses.

Peter Robinson: I have been provoked by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) into responding, which I presume was his purpose. First, I remind him that for many years he was happy to slink off here and there with Governments and other parties, make side deals, announce them to the public after the event, and never mention them to the Democratic Unionist party. That was par for the course. When it comes to an occasion when he might be outside the door, and the Democratic Unionist party might be inside, apparently that is a gross betrayal of democracy.

Mark Durkan: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, first, his party withdrew from the negotiations leading to the agreement and refused invitations to a variety of subsequent negotiations and talks. On any occasion when the question arose as to whether talks should be on an inclusive or exclusive basis, we always insisted on an inclusive basis. We complained about the exclusive basis of talks over a number of years after the agreement. We always advocated that the DUP and all other parties should be invited and included, and insisted on building inclusion into the agreement.

The Chairman: Order. I think it might help the Committee if I suggest that we are moving well beyond the scope of the amendment. We have a full agenda today, and I think we would do better to remain strictly within the rules of order.

Peter Robinson: I am happy to follow your advice, Sir Alan, because I think that we were moving beyond not just the scope of the amendment, but the scope of historical fact. The revision of history by the hon. Member for Foyle is perhaps best left to one side.
	Whatever the Committee does today will not bring the day when policing and justice powers are devolved in Northern Ireland one moment closer. No decision by the House of Commons will provide the enabling powers; the decision will be made only when the people of Northern Ireland are apprised of the method of devolving the policing and justice powers and of whom they will be devolved to. That is an essential issue, which is dealt with in later amendments.
	We are not afraid of enabling powers, provided there is some democratic control over the enabling process. We have tabled a new clause, because the Minister will doubtless wish to honour the private undertaking—no doubt the hon. Member for Foyle would describe it as a side deal—that he gave us when he met my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other colleagues in a Committee Room of the House. He assured us then that there was no mischief in the fact that a crucial safeguard had been deleted from the legislation. The Government have made no attempt to restore that safeguard by means of an amendment, however, and we shall want to discuss that later as well.
	I understand that this is a probing amendment, and I am satisfied that the menu to which the hon. Member for Foyle referred is as expansive as possible, although, like the hon. Gentleman—but for entirely different reasons—I am not sure that involving the First and Deputy First Ministers is the most appropriate way of dealing with it. It is in the nature of policing and justice, especially policing, that it must be possible to make decisions on the spot when circumstances require it and the public interest demands it. A First and a Deputy First Minister acting jointly will need a longer time in which to make decisions. If the amendment did not just make provision but contained a requirement, I would have some misgivings about the ability of a First and a Deputy First Minister acting jointly to make decisions in the time required on crucial issues that would have an impact on public safety.
	The hon. Member for Foyle seemed to think that the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister was so overworked that the additional massive burden would be too much for them to carry. In fact, when the devolved Assembly was operating and we had a First and Deputy First Minister, they were foraging everywhere for work. They had so little to do that they were sticking their noses in other Departments, and removing and duplicating what was being done there. I have no doubt, therefore, that the office would have the capacity to take on more work.

Jim Devine: The job description that the hon. Gentleman has just given for a First Minister is not one that I would recognise in a devolved Scotland. The First Minister in a devolved Scotland is a political leader and a political driver who sells Scotland abroad—and sells it very successfully, given that we will host the Commonwealth games in 2014.

Peter Robinson: I would be content to exchange not just the First Minister but our whole Assembly for the Scottish Parliament. Our First Minister in Northern Ireland spent about 80 per cent. of his time trying to keep his party together, never mind the country.
	I recognise that the option may be withdrawn, but I do not believe that any of these provisions will be sufficient to secure the devolution of policing and justice. Further legislation will undoubtedly be required, because there are weaknesses and gaps in the existing legislation.
	I assure the hon. Member for Foyle that no deals have been done with the Government or any other party in relation to my party's participation in any Assembly, any Executive or any devolved institutions, including policing and justice. No agreement has been made on those aspects. I greatly doubt that, in my lifetime, we shall ever see circumstances in which they could be devolved, although I would be happy if that were possible.
	One suggestion that I did make was that if there were a single Department with a single Minister and if it could be bid for under d'Hondt, my party, being the largest party, would secure that office. That would be a way forward for Northern Ireland, and if other parties are willing to consider it we shall be happy to oblige.

Lorely Burt: I have a practical question. We would have no objection to the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly, or for that to be an option that the parties could consider in deciding how to arrange a Department with policing and justice functions, but, although I may well be wrong, it seems to me that the amendment is superfluous. I see no reason why the joint exercise of the powers by Ministers could not involve the First and Deputy First Ministers. Does the Minister agree that it is for the parties in Northern Ireland to decide how they organise their own Departments?

David Hanson: I am grateful to those who have spoken and hope that I can deal with their points.
	As I told the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) privately outside the Chamber before the debate, if he examines sections 17, 19 and 21 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, he will see that his amendment is unnecessary. What he wants it to do is already possible and need not be included in the Bill. Sections 17 and 19 of the 1998 Act provide that the First and Deputy First Ministers may, with cross-community Assembly support, determine the functions to be exercisable by the holder of each ministerial office, and that will include themselves. I hope that that will allay the hon. Gentleman's fears, and those of the hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

Nigel Dodds: What practical difference will the clause make, given the existence of powers in the 1998 Act and the political reality that exists in Northern Ireland today?

David Hanson: Additional models need to be applied to support the potential options for the Assembly to choose, in due course, what form the devolution of policing should take. If we did not include those additional models, we would restrict the Assembly's choice. That relates particularly to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Foyle, who said that it was a case of rearranging the furniture. That is not so: the 1998 Act, as it stands, is insufficient without further primary legislation.

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister address the possibility that the Bill will limit the choices? If the parties in the Assembly are confined to the models in the Bill, we shall not be able to agree that a sole Minister could be appointed, outside d'Hondt and by direct election, on the basis of cross-community support by the Assembly. We shall not be allowed to pursue that option. If we do, surely new legislation will be needed and the Bill will be redundant.

David Hanson: A number of potential options in the 1998 Act allow the appointment of Ministers, including the First and Deputy First Ministers, and set out the way in which such appointments are made. This Bill is adding to that by putting in place a number of additional options to allow what I believe individuals want in due course, which is the potential to devolve policing and criminal justice.
	I find myself in a strange situation. Yesterday, I was arguing to have Assembly matters devolved back to the Assembly and to give away my responsibilities for housing, culture, arts and leisure to the Department for Social Development and my colleagues in the Assembly. Today, I am proposing giving my criminal justice powers to the Assembly when the Assembly wants them. It is strange to be giving away powers on both occasions for devolution to the Assembly yet to find difficulty in terms of the wish of hon. Members to receive those powers in due course.

Mark Durkan: Can the Minister tell us where in the Bill the power is being given away and what power? While we have all sorts of options in the Bill as to how Ministers might be appointed, it is silent on what their powers would be.

David Hanson: The Bill will devolve criminal justice and policing when the Assembly wishes on a cross-community vote in due course—

Mark Durkan: Where in the Bill does it say that?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have given previous commitments that devolution of policing and criminal justice will happen. The Bill sets the framework for that. Part of the 1998 Act relates to that framework. As the Minister now, I am saying to the Committee, as we said on Second Reading, that, if at some point in the future, when the Assembly is reconstituted—as I hope that it will be by November—and if it wishes to have devolved to it criminal justice and policing, if the Secretary of State wishes to agree to that and if the House of Commons supports it, devolution will take place.
	I can confirm that it is possible under the 1998 Act to do what the amendment seeks to do, and I recommend that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) withdraw his amendment.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed. I recognise the objections that have been made, although the amendment seeks to give the Assembly the option of that particular arrangement. Given that the Minister has put on the record an assurance that an option already exists, I am happy to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 14, line 12, at end insert—
	'(4A) No person shall be appointed as Minister or Junior Minister of a Department to exercise functions consisting wholly or mainly of devolved policing and justice functions pursuant to this section if he has—
	(a) been convicted of a criminal offence and had a sentence of imprisonment imposed whether suspended or not; or
	(b) failed to make a declaration to the Assembly of unequivocal support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary).'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 21, in schedule 2, page 26, line 9, after 'until', insert '—
	(i)'.
	Amendment No. 22, in schedule 2, page 26, line 10, at end insert—
	'(ii) has made a declaration before the Assembly supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and pledging to uphold the rule of law; and'.
	New clause 3—Northern Ireland Ministers—
	'In section 18 of the 1998 Act after subsection (8) insert—
	"(8A) A Northern Ireland Minister shall not take up office until he has made a declaration before the Assembly pledging to support the Police Service or Northern Ireland and uphold the rule of law.".'.
	New clause 4—Exclusion of Ministers from Office—
	'(1) In section 30 of the 1998 Act after subsection (1)(b) add—
	"(c) because he is no longer committed to supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland.".
	(2) In section 30 of the 1998 Act after subsection (2)(b) add—
	"(c) because it is no longer committed to supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland.".
	(3) In section 30 of the 1998 Act after subsection (7)(d) add—
	"(e) is committed now and in the future to supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland.".'.

Lady Hermon: It is essential that the amendment be included in clause 19. It may be helpful for hon. Members if I read it out, because I am sure that many hon. Members will wish to speak to it. It says:
	"No person shall be appointed as Minister or Junior Minister of a Department to exercise functions consisting wholly or mainly of devolved policing and justice functions pursuant to this section if he—
	or presumably she—
	"has—
	(a) been convicted of a criminal offence and had a sentence of imprisonment imposed whether suspended or not; or—
	this is an important alternative—
	(b) failed to make a declaration to the Assembly of unequivocal support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary).'.
	That last phrase is, of course, the proper title of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as established by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
	I am sure that Members throughout the Committee agree with me that it would be inconceivable that a Home Secretary or a Minister for Justice should have a criminal record that has involved a prison sentence, whether suspended or not. The wording has been carefully drafted to refer not just to small, technical although serious criminal convictions. Traffic offences can certainly be very serious indeed. It refers to criminal   offences that carry with them a sentence of imprisonment, whether suspended or not.
	As I say, it is inconceivable that a Minister for Justice or a Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland with responsibility for policing and justice should have a criminal record. It is also inconceivable that such a Minister should not give their absolute unwavering support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the courageous work that it undertakes.
	I am always reminded by the Government and by the Prime Minister when he visits Northern Ireland of the key words "building trust and confidence" among the community in Northern Ireland. Having had 30-plus years of absolute mayhem in which more than 3,000 people have lost their lives in hideous and horrible circumstances and many thousands have been seriously injured and will carry those wounds both psychological and physical for the rest of their days, the words "trust and confidence" must mean something, rather than be simple words poured out by the Prime Minister and a series of Secretaries of States and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. "Trust and confidence" means that those who take a very responsible office in charge of policing or justice as a junior Minister or a more senior Minister, whether it is a rotating option every six months or a joint ministerial appointment, must meet the terms of the amendment. It is essential that the amendment be incorporated into the Bill.

Sammy Wilson: I fully accept all the points that the hon. Lady made. Does she also accept that the conditions in the amendment should apply to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and any other Minister who will be in a position of trust?

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting and, of course provocative suggestion. He knows that that provision is not included in the 1998 Act. I confirm that we are talking here about policing and justice. It is a serious issue.

Peter Robinson: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Assembly Members on the Policing Board should also be able to meet the criteria that she sets down?

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter of considerable regret that, when the Bill which became the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 was being debated, amendments were rejected that would have required that those who sat on the Policing Board would be disqualified and prevented from taking their places if they had a criminal record. It is a matter of regret that such a provision was not written into that Act.
	Here we have an opportunity that the Minister can ill afford to decline this afternoon. If key new Departments are to be created in Northern Ireland and powers devolved to them, it should be a prerequisite that any Minister who takes up a post should not have a string of criminal convictions and should support the police without hesitation.

Mark Durkan: I listened carefully to the hon. Lady's presentation of the amendment. I am in no way persuaded to offer it any support. I shall give a number of grounds for that. First, in the negotiation of the Good Friday agreement, a clear, deliberate, collective decision was made that we would not build in any vetting requirements, qualification or screening in relation to ministerial appointments. To use this Bill to do so now would take us on a path that departs from the spirit, the letter and the principle of the Good Friday agreement.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that my colleagues were not involved in those negotiations, so perhaps he can give us some illumination. When he talks about a collective decision, which parties took that decision?

Mark Durkan: The parties who were present in the negotiation. I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson)—his own party colleague now—was prominently involved in the precise decision that in no way should we have arrangements that would allow other parties to vet or veto anybody else's choice of Minister. We took that decision because to create such powers would force parties to use the power to vet or veto other people's choice of Minister. The hon. Gentleman was clear on that and I remember being directly involved in negotiations in that context with him. I remember it clearly, although I am sure that he tries to forget it.

Peter Robinson: What parties?

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman asked what parties. The main person who negotiated for the Ulster Unionist party is no longer in that party. That is the unfortunate problem. I did not want to tell a partial truth. I told the whole truth without being diverted from the issue.
	To include these sorts of requirements, tests and blockages would depart from the agreement in that regard.

Nigel Dodds: I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying on this issue. Would he be content for a known racist, for example, or someone who held extreme right-wing or left-wing views to hold this sort of position? Would he have no difficulties whatever with that?

Mark Durkan: We decided clearly in the agreement that there could not be all sorts of tests of people's views, qualifications and records. Many of us believe that there are people of extreme views in some parties. When we agreed inclusion without a test in the agreement, we said that that would apply to members of parties who were not even involved in the negotiations and members of parties whom we find to have extreme and intolerant views on a number of issues, including homophobia.

Sammy Wilson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned homophobia. He may recall that his party led the charge to ensure that someone who had been accused and convicted of making homophobic remarks was taken off, not as a Minister of Justice, nor even as a member of the Policing Board, but as a member of a lowly district policing partnership. If such remarks exclude a person from being a member of a DPP, why not from being a Minister of justice?

Ian Paisley: Different standards.

Mark Durkan: I see no proposals from hon. Members to make the case. That is a matter of political choice.

William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman is exposed.

Mark Durkan: We are in no way exposed.

Several hon. Members: Wholly exposed.

The Chairman: Order. We must conduct these proceedings with a proper sense of order. All this sedentary comment and noise is not helpful to proper, moderately worded and conducted debate.

Mark Durkan: We are in no way exposed in relation to this point. I am explaining carefully and clearly how the decision to appoint Ministers by respective parties was reached. Obviously parties and party leaders would be held to democratic account in different ways for their choices of Ministers. Elsewhere in the agreement we wanted to create an all-Ireland charter for human rights that would be signed by all parties. We always hoped that that would include parties and party leaders making clear declarations about such issues.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a charter of human rights, and I know that later this afternoon we shall come to amendments in his name that relate to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the increased powers proposed for it by his party. His party claims to support human rights, of which the right to life is the most fundamental. How can it reconcile appointing a justice or policing Minister who may well have snuffed out and taken the life of another person with showing respect for human rights?

Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Lady's point. Many people are suspected of exactly the sort of crime that she is talking about, but have no conviction. It may well be possible for somebody whom many people believe has committed such a crime to be appointed a Minister. They would not be disqualified by her amendment, which relates purely to a conviction and imprisonment, so there is no contradiction in our position in relation to upholding human life as the most fundamental human right.
	A further reason why I oppose the amendment is that it may have unforeseen applications. If someone is to make a declaration to the Assembly of unequivocal support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, some of us could argue that the Ulster Unionist party now is potentially showing equivocal support. It has a semi-detached position in relation to its membership of the Policing Board. It has some sort of observer status. The UUP members in Belfast are still not sitting on the district policing partnership, as part of their continuing protest at police practices in relation to the Whiterock parade—an occasion when the police face violent and vicious attack. Rather than condemning those attacks first and foremost, many Unionist representatives sought to condemn the police, the Parades Commission and the Secretary of State. For many of us that raises the question how truly those parties are upholding the rule of law and supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: In my absence, I believe that the hon. Gentleman referred to my role in the negotiations leading up to the Belfast agreement. May I put it on the record that it has never been my position that Ministers involved in criminality, paramilitarism or terrorism of any kind should hold Government office? He will know that I have devoted the last eight years of my life to opposing the proposition that any Minister who has a connection with a paramilitary terrorist organisation should be a Minister in the Government of Northern Ireland. There is nothing in the Belfast agreement that suggests otherwise. The hon. Gentleman will know that it contains provisions, flawed though they are, to apply sanctions to any Minister who is in breach of the ministerial code.

Mark Durkan: I was clear in the recollection that I shared with the Committee on the negotiation of the d'Hondt mechanism. At no point did I say that the hon. Gentleman advocated that people with convictions should be appointed Ministers. I said that he, as one of the negotiators then for the UUP, was clear in accepting the d'Hondt mechanism, and that it would be wrong to have a means whereby parties could be seen to be vetting or vetoing—we used those words at the time—each other's ministerial appointments. I can recollect further, but I do not want to embarrass him by doing so now. I can share recollections with him outside. I have a colourful recollection of that particular point in the negotiations and his prominent and, I believed at the time, constructive involvement in it.

Lady Hermon: Before the hon. Gentleman closes his remarks, may I say quietly and calmly that I take serious exception to the implication in his earlier remarks that the UUP does not give its full support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland? He will know that my party leader has difficulties with breaches of commitments that were given by the Secretary of State and with the turning of the Policing Board into a quango, instead of a body as suggested by Patten. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is most unfortunate.

Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Lady's sentiments, but she has in no way answered the question about the position of UUP members in Belfast who refused to sit on the Belfast district policing partnership and who withdrew in the aftermath of the Whiterock parade, but who continue to sit on the north and west Belfast parades forum with representatives of the very paramilitary organisations that carried out those violent attacks on the police service.
	I am simply making the point that the language in this amendment, and in some of the others that have been selected for debate later, can be used to catch and challenge parties in a way that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) may not have considered. We can ask fundamental questions about the attitudes of the parties involved, and the US envoy to Northern Ireland, Mitchell Reiss, did just that in respect of Unionist leaders after the Whiterock riots. He has always been very clear and firm about the need to uphold the requirements of a lawful society. He wants Sinn Fein to meet those standards, but he also reminded Unionist leaders that their commitment to those requirements was open to question.
	That is another reason why we cannot support the amendment, which raises a number of contradictions and difficulties.

Laurence Robertson: We are discussing the devolution of policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as and when it is up and running. There is much concern on both sides of the House that there is a possibility that the responsibility for such important matters could fall into the wrong hands.
	At a recent meeting with the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, I was told about the fears that members of that organisation felt at the prospect of the Assembly controlling policing and justice. I understand that those fears have been communicated to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward).
	The amendments in my name—Nos. 21 and 22, and new clauses 3 and 4—address those fears, and would go some way to easing them. They would ensure that people would not be able to take ministerial office in Northern Ireland unless they made a declaration, before the Assembly, that they supported the Police Service of Northern Ireland and pledged to uphold the rule of law.
	Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 would amend paragraph 5(8) of schedule 2, which states:
	"The relevant Ministers . . . shall not take up office until each of them has affirmed the . . . pledge of office".
	That pledge includes a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
	Given that we are seeking to devolve policing and justice, it does not seem to me to be asking a lot for potential Ministers to affirm their support for the police. The extra requirement in the amendment is a very minor adjustment, and I should have thought that its inclusion should be axiomatic. Although it might seem a small step to me, I accept that it might seem a large one to some people, yet it would give at least some confidence to members of those political parties in Northern Ireland that show no reluctance about supporting the police and upholding the rule of law that people seeking to hold office would have the appropriate objectives. In other words, the amendments would add to the pledge of office a commitment to support the police. I think that that is reasonable.
	New clause 3 would amend section 18 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that people appointed as Ministers have declared before the Assembly that they also support the police and uphold the rule of law. New clause 4 would amend section 30 of the 1998 Act to allow for the exclusion from office of any person who is no longer committed to supporting the police and upholding the rule of law. It would also provide for the exclusion from office of members of any political party that is no longer committed to supporting the police and upholding the rule of law. Finally, it would empower the Secretary of State to require the presiding officer to move a motion in the Assembly excluding people from office if they or their party do not support the police or uphold the rule of law.
	I do not see why there should be a great deal of difficulty with the amendments. I heard what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, and I agree with much of it, although I draw a different conclusion. If we leave matters as they are, I understand that there will be stumbling blocks to the devolution of policing and justice, and that more or less the same stumbling blocks would obstruct getting the Assembly up and running in the first place.
	I want the Assembly to be up and running, but first we must address the real and legitimate fears of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. One fear is that Ministers will come to office who are not persuaded that they should follow exclusively peaceful means. Another is that some members of the Assembly might be Ministers by day and terrorists—if I may use that word—by night.
	Those are real fears, and the Government must put pressure on the appropriate people. We have had many debates, in the House and in Committee, and as I said yesterday, the Minister of State has been unfailingly courteous. I cannot remember one occasion when he has refused an intervention, and I am sure that he will agree that members of all parties that have taken part in the debates have behaved in a very reasonable and constructive way.
	However, one party has not taken part—Sinn Fein. The blame for the fact that the Assembly does not sit should be placed not on the constitutional parties that sit in this House, but on the party that does not appear here, and on the IRA. If the Minister accepts the amendments, that would go some way towards addressing the real and legitimate fears expressed many times in the House by the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

Stephen Pound: Like most hon. Members, I am reluctant to be seen in opposition to the hon. Member for South Down—

Lady Hermon: North Down.

Stephen Pound: I apologise: not only is the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) known to have one of the best legal brains in the House, she is also unfailingly courteous and charming, and I understand the motivation behind her amendment. However, I have no such inhibition about amendment No. 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).
	With her amendment No. 31, the hon. Member for North Down has moved the debate on from the minutiae of who did what to whom, in what guise and wearing what colours on a Good Friday late in the last century. Instead, the amendment focuses on the core question of what we are trying to achieve today.
	This is the second day of debate on this Bill. Yesterday, we heard one of the most extraordinary statements ever uttered in this House, when the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said
	"£1.7 million does not buy an awful lot these days"—[Official Report, 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 171.]
	We have gone from the depths of that comment to the heights of the points made by the hon. Members for North Down and for Tewkesbury, and various others. The key question is: can a democracy flourish or even function if some of the people in the democratic process have pasts that might be bloody and bitter, and whose lives have been lived in opposition to the principle of democracy?
	It would be otiose for me to make the obvious point that, if the sort of filter or block that is proposed in the amendment had been imposed in the past, people such as George Washington, Jan Smuts, Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela would never have held office. As it happens, all four held the highest office in their respective nations, and did so with distinction.
	Some may say that there is a difference between a declared war and the sort of activity that we are talking about. That would be true in the case of three of the people whom I mentioned, but in one case it would not.

Gregory Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Pound: I will give way in a moment, but before I do I want to emphasise that I have chosen my words very carefully. I understand how difficult this matter is. We are talking about actions as bitter as wormwood and gall to many hon. Members, and I understand that their communities have suffered for many years in ways that are inconceivable to people who live in comparative safety and comfort in Great Britain. However, people in my borough of Ealing have been affected physically—and lethally—by the conflict. Therefore, I feel that I have the right to speak about these matters in this House, and to say that it is vital that we thaw the permafrost, escape from the past and move forward.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert attention away from the essence of the amendment. This is not only about people who have a past; it is about people with a present and particular attitude to the police. The second part of the amendment requires such people to make a declaration of support for the very service that, as Ministers, they are supposed to be in charge of.

Stephen Pound: I am very grateful—rather more often than I expected to be—for the hon. Gentleman's interventions, but I disagree profoundly with the point that he makes. If that were the case, we could understand the need for the amendment. If we say, as one of the amendments specifies, that everybody holding office has to swear to uphold the rule of law, that implies that we can pick and choose our obedience to the rule of law. Every single one of us is subject to the rule of law, so it is otiose and unnecessary to say that we will respect it. It is like saying that one gets wet when it rains—these are facts of life.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred earlier to the past and the present, and he is absolutely and precisely right. Although the past is in some ways uncertain because it is constantly reinterpreted, at least we know what happened in the past, and we can examine it. What we cannot do is to legislate for attitude. How in heaven's name can attitude be analysed, delineated, listed and then legislated for? I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's comments should not commend themselves to the House, because of the simple fact that it is impossible to analyse attitude.

Gregory Campbell: The issue has been raised of past miscreants who engaged in criminal activity perhaps becoming, for example, Justice Ministers in Northern Ireland. Such people may currently support illegality and criminality; indeed, some would say that they do. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that we need a clear definition from these people that they have departed from their past—if it is indeed their past—and that they must demonstrate credible support for law and order if they are ever to become Ministers?

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Few statements are less equivocal than the statement that was made to the effect that the war is over. The hon. Gentleman will probably say that although statements can be made and words uttered, they may be blown hither and thither on the wind, but what on earth would it take to prove this commitment? One could say, "Here is a form of words that constitutes a continual raising of the bar, which has to be jumped over before such people are acceptable." However, although it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to speak for the Government—I have no doubt that I will never be called upon to do so—I would suggest that the participation of individuals in the democratic process is in itself a statement of intent. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred, somewhat exotically, to someone choosing to be a legislator by day and a terrorist by night, but that simply does not happen: it is not practical and there is no historical precedent for it.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman referred to a phrase used by the leader of Sinn Fein—the statement that the war is over. If the war is indeed over, why do Sinn Fein refuse to take their places on the Policing Board, refuse to call upon young republicans to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland and refuse to give any hint of support for the police service? That is the issue that he must address.

Stephen Pound: I carry many a heavy load on my journey through this vale of tears that we call life, but one thing that I do not, cannot and shall never do is answer for Sinn Fein on the Floor of this House. That is not my job and in all frankness, it is not one that I would choose to apply for. I cannot speak for them; they can, and do, speak for themselves, albeit not here.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman needs to make a better attempt at answering the very reasonable question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). He said that the IRA stated that the war was over, but he knows as well as the rest of us that the elected Sinn Fein Members do not take their seats in this House because they do not recognise the legitimacy of this Parliament. Similarly, they do not recognise the legitimacy of the police in Northern Ireland. Surely it is reasonable to expect someone who takes office and takes charge of the police to recognise their legitimacy. That is what my amendment seeks to ensure.

Stephen Pound: Recognising the police's legitimacy is one thing; having to swear a secondary or tertiary oath is entirely another matter. All Members of this House swear an Oath of Allegiance and we accept that. We have never been asked to swear a second or third oath, and frankly, introducing an additional filter of oath-taking would be provocative.
	As I said earlier, I do not speak for Sinn Fein in this House, nor will I, but based on my tiny amount of knowledge of the subject, the consistent political position of Sinn Fein, who believe in an all-Ireland party and who do not wish to sit in the legislature of what they consider another country, is understandable and legitimate, even if it is not endorsed by many—about four, I should imagine—Members of this House. It would be easy for them to turn up, collect their pay and rations and keep their fingers crossed when they swear the Oath of Allegiance. They do not do so and I almost admire them for that, even if they do not have my personal sympathy.

Gregory Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that Sinn Fein have said repeatedly that they do not accept the legitimacy of the army of the Irish Republic—the "Oglaigh Na hEireann", as they call it—let alone this House or this jurisdiction? Given that attitude, can we accept the bona fides of such a person if they aspire to be a Justice Minister in Northern Ireland?

Stephen Pound: The description "Oglaigh Na hEireann" was in fact used for a different army on a number of occasions, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. I repeat—I hope for the last time—that I cannot speak for another political party; indeed, I can scarcely speak for my own on many occasions. I say, in a sincere attempt to cut through the mist and obfuscation and the terrible dead weight of the past that hangs so heavily on our shoulders, that were I faced with choosing between an individual committing acts of terrorism or them being in a state legislature, choosing the latter option might well stick in my craw. I accept that entirely, and I cannot say too often how much I understand the difficulties that Northern Ireland Members have faced over the years, but given the choice of such a person being at the Dispatch Box or wielding a nail bomb, I am absolutely sure which I prefer.
	Winston Silcott, the man accused of the appalling murder of PC Keith Blakelock at Broadwater Farm, was later released from prison and took part in a youth diversion programme in the borough of Haringey. People said exactly the same thing then: how can somebody accused of such a crime now be on the side of law and order? However, I am delighted at every sinner who repents. [Interruption.] I appreciate that we are moving away from the subject for debate, and before your eyebrows rise any higher, Sir Michael, I will return to the point at hand. I say with the deepest respect to the hon. Member for North Down that she has made the mistake of confusing policy and personalities. If Sinn Fein were not involved and there were no Provisional IRA, nobody would be talking about constantly raising the bar in this way. What we are talking about is a disqualification mechanism when in fact, we should be thinking of mechanisms for inclusion. We are talking about a way of preventing people from participating in the democratic process when we should be drawing people into that process, and if they bring with them a trail speckled with blood, I must reluctantly accept that that was the past but that this is the future, and people change.
	I respectfully suggest that there is enough evidence to indicate that people have changed, although not, in heaven's name, nearly enough to satisfy every Member of the House. I would not be so foolish or presumptuous as to imply that those people have changed completely, but they have changed, so to apply yet another series of filters can only be seen as a force against inclusion.

Iris Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman try to see our side of the argument by answering this question? Ten or 15 years down the road, would he accept into the Government the people who committed 7/7 in London? Will he balance that with what he is asking us to do? Let us not forget that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was disbanded and its name blackened across the world to satisfy Sinn Fein-IRA, yet even though that was done and we now have the Police Service of Northern Ireland they still do not accept the PSNI, despite 50:50 and the Government turning cartwheels to accommodate every demand put to them. Can the hon. Gentleman understand that we have 3,500 dead in Northern Ireland, most of whom were Protestants, from the Protestant community? That does not take away the fact that it is immoral to murder Catholics too.

Stephen Pound: I do not mean this ungraciously, but the hon. Lady frequently throws a bucket of cold water on us because she shocks us into—[Interruption.] No, I am complimenting the hon. Lady in a roundabout way. She shocks us into facing the realities of the consequences of some of the things we talk about on the Floor of the House. To respond to her question, leaving aside the two facts that the majority of people killed during the 30 years of the troubles were Roman Catholics and that the people who committed 7/7 are all dead, not only would I welcome into the House a disaffected Muslim youth who had been a supporter of the murderous people who committed the crime of 7/7, I would actually drive them to the door if necessary. I do not want people slaughtering my fellow citizens on tubes and buses and if an alternative is to bring them in so that they are not living on the wilder outer fringes of lunacy, where they believe in some nonsense that they can bomb their way into a different world order, I would welcome them.

William McCrea: rose—

Stephen Pound: Sir Michael, I understand the rules of good manners and the rules of debate, and that this one finishes at 6 pm, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea).

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he really want the House to believe that the murderers of 7/7 could come to the House and be good candidates for the position of Home Secretary or Home Office Minister?

Stephen Pound: In making his point so dramatically, the hon. Gentleman rather loses the precision of the point originally made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson). We are not talking about the individual who committed the act—[Hon. Members: "We are."] Not in respect of 7/7; those people are dead. I am talking about a far more dangerous grouping—the people who provide the sea in which terrorist fish swim. Those people are so disaffected—to recognise that that disaffection exists if not necessarily to approve of it—that they see only one route to realise their ambitions. Would I rather see them participating in the democratic process? For heaven's sake, would not every one of us rather see them doing that, even if sometimes, Sir Michael, you have to hold your nose when you look around and see what democracy has thrown up? We may not like the Hamas victory in Palestine, but is not it better that people are participating in the democratic process?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Pound: I have a worrying suspicion that interventions could continue for some time, so I shall conclude on the two most serious points.
	I apologise for reiterating the first point, but it bears repetition: at a personal level, I profoundly regret any impression that I or any of my colleagues may ever give that we are less than sympathetic to the reality of life as it has been and is being lived in the north of Ireland. We understand in many cases, even though we may be confused in some cases. We may sometimes be the victims of history or our personal prejudice, but if there is one thing that overarches every syllable that has been uttered in the Chamber over the last two days, if there is one aim and one light that we can surely walk towards, it is the possibility—the prospect—of that shimmering chimera of the future where we can have a peaceful community.
	To reach what is not nirvana, but an achievable situation, we have to make some unpleasant decisions. We have to live with some unfortunate facts. We have to live with things with which, frankly, we would rather not live. But the alternative is to be for ever frozen in a bloodstained past with no hope and no future whatever. I am not happy with the situation. I do not like it, and in an ideal world I would have nothing to do with it, but we live in a real world and constantly to tell people, "We will not allow you in unless you tick this box, tick that box, jump this bar and swear that oath," is ultimately prohibitive and negative, and will detract from the one thing that every democrat in the House of Commons wants—a peaceful future for the people of a Province who have suffered for long enough.

Peter Robinson: May I respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound)? Earlier, he indicated his propensity to read Hansard reports of previous sittings. Tomorrow, when he reads his contribution to this debate, he will realise that it did him no credit. He started by struggling and ended by wriggling.
	I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the people who will be Ministers for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. They could be chosen—and are likely to be chosen if there are joint Ministers—from those who have engaged in the most heinous crimes imaginable in Northern Ireland. The current Sinn Fein-IRA spokesperson on policing and justice is Gerard Kelly, who, among his achievements, was responsible for the bombing of the Old Bailey and the attempted bombing of New Scotland Yard—policing and justice in one go. The same person was jailed in the Maze prison and led an escape in which one of my constituents was killed by being stabbed in the eye with a screwdriver. That is a person whom we are asked to accept as a Minister for policing and justice in Northern Ireland.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) intervened to indicate that the hon. Member for Ealing, North was saying that he would welcome certain people to come into the heart of government in the United Kingdom, and the comparison to be made is exactly as my hon. Friend said: it is like bringing a member of al-Qaeda who has been responsible for terrorist offences into the office of policing and justice as the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom. Not one hon. Member would contemplate that; why should we contemplate it in Northern Ireland? That is what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do.
	What offends the hon. Gentleman, if he is offended by the proposition of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? She suggests that in the circumstances, given the history of the parties in Northern Ireland, it is proper for people who are to attain that high office, that responsible post in Northern Ireland, to be prepared to pledge themselves to support the police service that they will administer. Is that an outrageous suggestion? Is it so off the wall to expect those who will be responsible for policing and justice in Northern Ireland to say, "We support the police"?
	The hon. Gentleman thinks that it is awful to ask those people to pledge themselves in that way. He says that we come to the House and we make pledges, but no one asks us to take a second pledge. Well, he asked me to take a second pledge in Northern Ireland, because he supported the enactment of the Belfast Agreement in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which required a pledge of office to be taken by Ministers in Northern Ireland.
	A pledge of office had to be taken, because of the recognition that, in the special circumstances of that Assembly, it was necessary for those Ministers to pledge themselves to certain standards and behaviour. Is there something different in the office of policing and justice? Is it not more required in those circumstances that a pledge of office be taken? I fully support the proposition of the hon. Member for North Down, and I hope that, given the sincerity of Unionist Members and the severity of the criminal and other offences committed in Northern Ireland, the House will consider that it is a necessary requirement for the post that is being discussed.

Lorely Burt: I almost hesitate to rise to speak, after the passion and eloquence of the contributions that we have heard from hon. Members. I have listened very carefully to everything that has been said this afternoon, particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about paragraph (a) in the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), which relates to criminal offences and sentences of imprisonment debarring anyone from holding office. I have taken the hon. Gentleman's argument about that going against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.
	I have also listened very carefully to the eloquent and persuasive comments made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound). At the same time, however, we very much understand and sympathise with the feelings of many people in Northern Ireland about the fact that they wish for reassurance that those people who will take responsibility for their policing should also be part of the process. It is a great hope that, when that day comes, those people who take such responsibility will automatically take part by taking their seats on the Policing Board and becoming part of the community and structures in which they serve.
	I find myself in a little bit of a dilemma. Although we are minded to support the first and second parts of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Down, we are also minded to support new clause 3, proposed by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I should be extremely grateful if it could be possible to reflect those two elements of support in the voting pattern.

William McCrea: I am sure that the debate has certainly stirred the hearts of quite a number of Northern Ireland Members, especially given the contribution made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound). He tells us that we must live in the real world. With the greatest respect to him, no one, but no one, is living in the real world more than the people of Northern Ireland. We must tell the Government that, many times, they seem to be sleepwalking. They are not facing the realities of the situation. They are not part of the real world whenever they make demands and requests of members of the Unionist community or the nationalist community who have suffered grievously under all acts of terrorism.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we must move away from the sad past to a peaceful situation. Again, I say to him genuinely that there is no one who wants to see Northern Ireland in a peaceful and prosperous state more than the Unionist Members here today, and the Unionist family completely. We genuinely want Northern Ireland to move into a peaceful state, but the reality of the situation is that yesterday, a bomb was being prepared in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), in Lurgan, by the republican movement. In the constituency of Foyle, a few days before that, once again there was a primed bomb ready and activated to carry out a dastardly deed—certainly, we believe, of destruction and we were told by the police that it would have brought forth the reality of murder, had it gone off. That is the reality of the situation, and we close our eyes to it if we do not face that.

Stephen Pound: I read the details of the discovery in Lurgan with great interest. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the point is that those suspected of preparing that lethal device were identified by the headline of "dissident republicans"—the very people who are trying to stop other republicans taking part in the democratic process? Does his argument not support my thesis that it is better to have people in Stormont than in a lock-up in Lurgan?

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but people in Northern Ireland know fine well that the title of "dissident republican" has been used to cover a number of sins. In the case of some of the actions in the past, we have known that the dissidents have been working hand in glove with the provisionals. In that situation, we have got to ask ourselves, when does that title mean dissident and when does it mean something else? We know that, in certain parts of the Province, no dissident could do anything if the provisionals did not agree with it being done. They would not survive without that agreement, because the provisionals have a wonderful way of ensuring that people do not undertake action on their territory if they do not want them to do so. That has been proved in the past. We have to look at a situation in which neither the Police Service of Northern Ireland, nor the Garda from the Irish Republic, have stated with certainty what happened in the murder of Denis Donaldson, which could have been the act of the Provisional IRA.
	Yes, people can have a past. But the reality is that there has been no remorse—or no expression of remorse—from those persons who have been actively engaged, right up to the present time, in murderous activity. This House is being asked to give credence to someone who in actual fact has planned the murder—not only given credence to, but actually could have planned the murder—of police officers or members of the security forces. We are being asked to give credence to making them Minister for policing or justice. That is without any expression of remorse, regret or any other thing.
	A Provisional IRA member was caught red-handed a few days ago, but then, of course, the provisionals stated that they did not send him out and that he did not go with their agreement. Now they are trying to say, "Oh well, it wasn't approved by the army council." That is very interesting, because the IRA's last act before it started its supposed ceasefire was to be the murder of my wife, my children and myself—that was its last hooray. The next morning the ceasefire was declared. Those responsible have never been brought to justice—those who shot at my home, which was riddled by 60 bullets from an AK47, and directly at my daughter of seven years of age. Nobody has been brought to justice. What did the IRA say? The persons were not acting with their approval. Now, that would have been very nice if they had been carrying my wife and my children down the road in coffins. I would have been greatly encouraged if the act had not been approved.
	With the greatest respect, the hon. Member for Ealing, North and the House cannot understand the depths of what the past 35 years have done to the people of Northern Ireland. To sweep it away and put in control of policing or justice in Northern Ireland someone who not only agreed with murderous intent, but was an active participant in it, would be an absolute insult, as well as injury, to the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that nobody, but nobody, on the Government Benches would ever suggest that a member of al-Qaeda or those responsible for 7/7 in the city of London would be at any time a suitable person to be Home Secretary, put in the Home Office, or put over the police. We must especially bear it in mind that these people will not even be asked to support the police, or give a pledge of their support of the security forces.
	I must say something to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about people disagreeing with certain police decisions about a parade. When he talked about an attack on the police, he gave the impression that the attack came simply from the loyalist community. Talk about a revision of facts. Whenever there have been Unionist and loyalist parades, constant attacks have come directly from the republican community. There is a vast difference between disagreeing with a police decision in a peaceful manner, even if that involves stepping aside from the district policing partnership, and allowing there to be someone over the police who does not support them and has actively participated in campaigning against them and actively supported a campaign of murder against them. Trying to equate those two things pushes matters beyond the realms of what I can accept.

Mark Durkan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not trying to equate those two things in any way. However, I was pointing out that the language used in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) could give rise to questions about other incidents. I further make the point that attacks made on the police by republicans—as the hon. Gentleman says—in the context of parades have always been fully, totally and properly condemned by the Social Democratic and Labour party.

William McCrea: With the greatest respect, I would prefer it if we did not necessarily go down that road. I remember sitting in a meeting of Magherafelt district council many years ago on the night of the Warrenpoint bombing, in which 19 soldiers were murdered, when a member of the hon. Gentleman's party, who is no longer with us, stated—this is in the minutes of the council, so the hon. Gentleman can check it—that he would shed no tears over them. I think that that person regretted saying that afterwards, so I will not attribute that opinion to the SDLP in general, or try to paint everyone in the SDLP as black, but the words were said.
	Members of the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and, indeed, members of the SDLP—namely, Mr. Attwood—have condemned many of the actions of the police in the past and disagreed with them, but that does not mean that they have given credence to terrorism, or that they should be brought into question as if they were somehow to be equated with persons who were actually evil participants in the murder and destruction of members of the police or the security forces.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, North said that Sinn Fein-IRA said that the war was over. The person who said those words denied that he was a member of the IRA army council. After denying for 30 years that he and Martin McGuinness were members of the army council, he told the community that they had resigned from it. With the greatest respect, one cannot resign from something if one was not a member. We are led to believe by those fanciful words that the war is over. Let me make it clear to the House that the IRA did not   change its policy because it had a change of heart—9/11 changed Sinn Fein-IRA policy. It could not go back to what it knew best, because the international community would not allow that to happen, so it had a good dose of reality.
	To this day, the structures of terrorism are in place, and individuals who could be in office accepted those structures. The structures of the grouping that murdered people for 35 years are still in existence. Someone can demand that they remain in place but, at the same time, they could be the Minister of justice or of policing. No one can ride two horses at once, and the reality is that terrorism, whether by the loyalist community or the Unionist community, is terrorism, and must be condemned unreservedly. I do so in the House without equivocation. Any Minister who takes such a role must not only condemn terrorism but give unreserved support to the forces of law and order who go out to sacrifice themselves in the defence of the freedoms of that community.

Sammy Wilson: We have gone over the issue a great deal, but I should like to take up a couple of points made by the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). There has been an attempt to use passion to cover up the lack of logic on the part of some Members who argued against a perfectly reasonable amendment. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is asking for two things: first, anyone who is in charge of policing in Northern Ireland should not have a serious criminal record and, secondly, they should be prepared to support the police service, and give public expression to that support. I do not know why that generated so much opposition, as both requirements are logical.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, North said that there were two reasons why he could not support the amendment. He said that we should not confuse the past with the present—just because someone has a past, that does not mean that they cannot have a present or a future. He may have stolen those words from the previous leader of the party of the hon. Member for North Down. On the issue of whether having a past disqualifies someone for office, I believe that it is difficult for someone with such a record to be in charge of policing or to have any credibility in such a role. Setting that aside, proposed paragraph (b) requires Ministers in charge of the police service to give support at the present time to that service. I do not see why that should create a problem. How could anyone say, "I wish to be in charge of policing in Northern Ireland, but by the way, I am so suspicious of the police service, or I have such antipathy towards it because of its past record, that I could not make a declaration of support for it"? There is no logic in that. The hon. Member for Ealing, North must have understood that, so he became quite passionate, to overcome the lack of logic in the position that he had adopted.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what it would take to make a member of Sinn Fein acceptable as Justice Minister. Let me tell him. I shall give some recent examples of the practical implications of not supporting the police service. A young girl from England, walking home late one night in west Belfast last summer, was raped by three fellows. They videoed it on her phone and sent the pictures to her mother in England. Sinn Fein would not encourage the people who had witnessed that event to give evidence to the police. What would it take? It would take members of that party at least to have enough willingness to support the police to encourage their constituents and those who look up to them to give evidence.
	What would it take? The hon. Member for Ealing, North has sat in a Northern Ireland Committee and listened to some of the evidence given about organised crime in Northern Ireland. When the police raid the home of someone who has hidden £600,000 under hay bales and hidden evidence of his fuel laundering and smuggling, it would take Conor Murphy and Gerry Adams not to attack the police for raiding the home of someone who is only a poor republican farmer and who supports the police process—the implied threat being that by raiding that home, the police are disturbing the chance of peace in Northern Ireland. That is what it would take.
	What would it take? Let me tell the hon. Member for Ealing, North. I serve on Belfast city council. Every year the police give awards for a rambling scheme. When it comes to allowing council facilities to be used to give out those awards, Sinn Fein's opposition to the police requires them to vote against that every time. I am not talking about an individual member of a party. I am talking about the collective attitude of Sinn Fein towards the police. If the hon. Gentleman believes that some member of a party which adopts that attitude towards the police is fit to be in charge of the police and to stand up in the Northern Ireland Assembly and defend the police, answer questions about the police and explain police operations, there is no logic in that. I hope the hon. Gentleman will rethink his position.
	I think the hon. Member for Foyle was having an experience similar to the experience that the Minister had yesterday, when he was trying to explain the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might refuse to allow the electoral officer to hold an additional canvass. He scratched around for reasons, and he came up with two—yesterday, the Minister came up with three, but they were no more convincing than the two that we have heard today.
	The first reason was, "We do not believe in building in a vetting requirement." I have pointed out that SDLP members on the Policing Board believe that the members of lowly district policing partnerships should be vetted. The Policing Board has a vetting procedure, which SDLP members argued for furiously. The code of conduct will require people on the Policing Board to have due regard to equality and diversity requirements. That means that even if someone expresses in a private capacity a religious belief deemed to be against equality and diversity requirements, they cannot sit on the Policing Board. Do not tell me about vetting.

Mark Durkan: I have never said that the SDLP has no time for vetting of any kind. In negotiating the agreement, it was clear that the appointment would be made by the d'Hondt system with no qualifications or vetting by any other parties, but the amendment would go against that aspect of the agreement. I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that the agreement included a pledge of office, and that we have said that we would look again at the pledge of office, including in relation to policing.

Sammy Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I did not realise that my argument had such force, but perhaps he is coming round to our point of view.

Mark Durkan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the record of our submissions to the review of the workings of the Good Friday agreement in 2004 shows that we made it clear that the terms of the pledge of office might need to be looked at. We also made that point as far back as 2003, when the question of the devolution of justice and policing came up—at that point, it was agreed that a series of arrangements needed to be looked at before that issue could be examined.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to move in that direction by including in her amendment a requirement that those who take on the role of policing and justice Ministers must pledge to support the institutions which they are going to govern.
	The second argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman—that the amendment could have unforeseen applications—was as weak as his first. The hon. Gentleman did not let the Minister off with weak examples yesterday, but the only example of an unforeseen application that he could provide was that the Ulster Unionist party in Belfast has withdrawn from the DPP, which could be interpreted as not supporting the police. I will not defend the UUP, because the hon. Member for North Down is quite capable of doing so, but by no stretch of the imagination could that example be described as not supporting the police in the same way as Sinn Fein members do not support the police.
	We will support the amendment, despite the lack of consistency—the position is no more or less important than any other office in an Executive in the Assembly, and the provision should apply to all Ministers and all ministerial posts. At least the amendment is a start, and when we discuss the pledge of office, hopefully the hon. Member for Foyle and his party will have changed their position sufficiently to include the provision in all pledges of office for Ministers in any Executive in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: I thank hon. Members for their powerful contributions to the debate. I particularly appreciate the comments made by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). They put their case powerfully; I cannot in any circumstances understand the difficulties that they and their constituents have faced.
	I shall not condone or defend the actions that hon. Members have described. Indeed, I condemn them with every fibre of my body. Terrorist activities—such as the cowardly attack against the family of the hon. Member for South Antrim—need to be, and will be, condemned by me from this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government. I will not condone or support any of the actions that have been mentioned, because they are intolerable and incompatible with a democratic society and with the values that we hold dear in this House.
	I understand the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). Support for law and order authorities and the rule of law are fundamental to democracy and to the good working of the Assembly in having control of policing and criminal justice in future. Nevertheless, I cannot support their amendments, for reasons that I hope to explain in clarifying the Government's view.
	Amendment No. 31 states:
	"No person shall be appointed as Minister or Junior Minister"—
	in a Department responsible for criminal justice and policing if they have—
	"been convicted of a criminal offence and had a sentence of imprisonment imposed whether suspended or not".
	I understand why the hon. Member for North Down tabled the amendment, but I cannot support it. In the House of Commons, the disqualification arrangements for ministerial office are broadly the same as in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In this House, a person who is detained in prison for a year or more is automatically disqualified from membership of the House and therefore from holding office for the period of his or her detention. Section 36(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that a person is similarly disqualified from the Assembly if he or she would be disqualified from the House of Commons. I can see no good reason to bar an individual in Northern Ireland from holding ministerial posts on the basis of any criminal conviction or to depart from the Westminster model.
	I do not wish in any way, shape or form to equate the situation in South Africa, for example, with that in Northern Ireland. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) pointed to three or four examples of individuals who have served criminal sentences in jurisdictions and who have gone on to serve their nation with distinction because, however much we may dislike the views that they express, they have ultimately, just like the hon. Member for South Antrim, had crosses put by their names on ballot papers by individuals in their communities. That is the test of democracy. They are in those Chambers with the legitimacy of those crosses, even if they have had convictions in the past for events that were, by any stretch of the imagination, intolerable at that time.
	If we introduce special provisions on disqualification relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly, they will not apply in the House of Commons. When I researched the amendment, I found, surprising as it may seem, that a Home Secretary of today could have a past conviction. Provided that they are not in jail now, they could serve as Home Secretary. Likewise, no such provisions for disqualification apply in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Although there are special and difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland, to introduce that condition would disqualify individuals on the basis of their past sentences, not on the basis of where they may be currently. Indeed, there may be Members of the House who currently could not serve in a Northern Ireland Executive because of the disqualification for which the amendment provides. That is unacceptable and generally unfair to society.
	Secondly, I believe that the protections for which the 1998 Act provides are sufficient. The hon. Member for Foyle mentioned the pledge of office. As hon. Members know, all Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly must affirm it before taking up their posts. It already requires them to make a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) also referred to the pledge of office. The protection of exclusively peaceful and democratic means already exists.
	If that were not enough, amendments to the 1998 Act to facilitate consideration of Independent Monitoring Commission recommendations provide sufficient safeguards when Ministers and parties fail to observe the pledge of office. Hon. Members know that if the IMC reports that activity of a criminal nature has taken place, it can be debated in the Assembly. Safeguards therefore exist for Ministers and the Assembly.

Lady Hermon: It is nice to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Michael. I am grateful to the Minister for taking an early intervention.
	Will the Minister explain what appears to be an absurdity in the Bill? Clause 8 provides that the chief electoral officer can be dismissed for having a criminal conviction, yet we have a lacuna whereby a Minister of justice or policing cannot be dismissed or disqualified if that individual has a criminal conviction. Will the Minister reconcile those irreconcilable facts?

David Hanson: Let me say again that, whatever the opinions of individual hon. Members—and we all have our disagreements—I believe that if a person has a cross put next to their name and sufficient support to take up a place in a Chamber, whether it is this Chamber, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the European Parliament, provided they are not serving a prison sentence, it gives them the legitimacy to enter that Chamber, and, if they have majority support, to hold office. That may be distasteful. There are some people whom I would not wish to see walking through the door into the Chamber—[Hon. Members: "Who?"] There are all sorts of individuals whom I could cite as an answer. However, those who walk into the Chamber do that because people have put crosses next to their names on ballot papers. That could be distasteful because they had committed horrendous acts in the past, including such acts as those that the hon. Member for South Antrim described. They are painful for him—it is painful to listen to their description—and for the community that he represents. However, the cross on the ballot paper confers legitimacy.

Peter Robinson: Would you make such a person Home Secretary?

David Hanson: I am making the point that a previous conviction does not bar an individual from holding office. A Prime Minister's judgment when deciding to appoint a Home Secretary could be a matter of concern.

Iris Robinson: The Minister talks about recognising a mandate. When we were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998, our mandate was for a no vote against the Assembly being up and running. We were treated appallingly, for example, by not being given Executive papers, simply because we voted no. Our mandate was not recognised. We were treated like lepers and demonised as being against peace simply because we said no. How does the Minister reconcile our treatment with being so flexible with Sinn Fein/IRA at every turn?

David Hanson: I am not being flexible with Sinn Fein or the IRA. If the matters that we are discussing are devolved in due course, there will be a triple lock. Devolution will happen only when the Assembly votes for it on a cross-community basis. After that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must agree with the vote and, subsequently, the House of Commons must vote for it. In the meantime, I do not believe that the amendment should be accepted and applied if an individual is nominated to the position of criminal justice Minister. Nor do I believe that any past criminal convictions should be material to the exercise of a person's function now, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Foyle mentioned.
	This is a difficult issue. I have listened with passion to the points made by my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for South Antrim, and I cannot imagine facing such situations in my daily life, with my children facing machine gun bullets from an IRA terrorist. Having said that, should we bar someone who received a conviction 20 or 30 years ago from holding office? I believe that the rules that apply to the House of Commons should be the rules that apply to the Assembly.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister has centred on the first part of the hon. Lady's amendment. I take it that he will come to its second part and, indeed, to my amendment. When he does so, will he tell the Committee whether he would be happy to have a Minister in charge of the police—given the crucial role that they play in any society—who did not recognise the legitimacy of that police force?

David Hanson: I want Sinn Fein to take part in the Policing Board and play a role in policing. I want to see that support for policing in the community.

Peter Robinson: It is one thing for the Minister to say that the rules that apply in the House of Commons should apply in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If everything was standing on all fours, that would be a sound argument to make. However, that is not the case. The Executive here are formed by means of a voluntary coalition. The Executive that will be formed in Northern Ireland will be a mandatory coalition under the Belfast agreement proposals, and under any other proposals that the Government have considered. On that basis, there will be no Prime Minister choosing the suitability of individuals. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has said, they will not be vetted in any way, so there will not be a similar set of circumstances, and that is why the conditions set out in the amendments must be applied.

David Hanson: I understand that point, but I stick to the principle that the cross on the ballot paper provides the legitimacy for a person to walk into a Chamber, and in my view the rules of this House should be applied separately.
	Hon. Members have raised points about the rule of law. Of course we wish to see the rule of law upheld. If the hon. Members for North Down and for Tewkesbury seek confirmation from the Government that the police service deserves full support from all quarters in Northern Ireland, of course I will say that it does, and of course the rule of law should be upheld. The answer to that is unquestionably yes. However, I must say, with respect to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, that to impose a legal requirement for a person to support law enforcement organisations, in whatever circumstances, or face expulsion from political office will give rise to problems. I do not wish to fetter Ministers in the future.
	Let me give the hon. Gentleman some examples. In regard to the separation of executive functions and operational independence, the Minister responsible for a police force has to be able to offer constructive criticism on the appropriate occasions to members of that police force. In addition, the Minister might have to consider appeals against decisions made by the Chief Constable or other members of the police force. That is the case with medical and firearms appeals, and a declaration of the kind that the hon. Gentleman seeks, giving full support to the police service, would be incompatible with the requirement for the Minister to act impartially on such issues.

Lorely Burt: The Minister seems to be giving the second part of the amendment some credibility. However, the situation in Northern Ireland is clearly not the same as that in England. Given that the people of Northern Ireland have a history of worrying about involvement in policing, and given the lack of involvement by certain parties, does not the Minister agree that it would give a great deal of reassurance to vast numbers of people if the person responsible for policing had overtly given their support for the whole policing system?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. If we reach the stage whereby policing is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, by the Assembly voting for it, the Secretary of State agreeing to it and this House voting for it, the situation will have arisen in which political parties in Northern Ireland are supporting policing. That will provide the confidence to undertake that.
	I do not believe that the amendments will achieve their intended objectives.

Laurence Robertson: I simply do not believe that the Minister has given an adequate explanation of why anyone would not want to support the police. Why on earth should they not want to do so? Can he give one reason?

David Hanson: I have tried to say to the hon. Gentleman that support for policing is important and fundamental. On occasions, however, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not support the police. As a Minister, he will take decisions that override the requests or decisions of the police.

Laurence Robertson: It is not about that.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not about that, but that is the effect of his amendment. Any Minister with responsibility for police should support the rule of law and law and order. The amendment, however, will ensure not just that, but will fetter the independence and management of the police service by Ministers.
	I understand why the amendments have been tabled. Despite the passion expressed by hon. Members, whom I thank for sharing their experiences with the House, I am not able to accept the amendments. If they are not withdrawn, I will have to urge my hon. Friends to vote against them.

Lady Hermon: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am not prepared to withdraw the amendments. I am disappointed with his woefully inadequate response to the significant points made by many Members in this lengthy debate.
	I am sure that the Minister is aware that all police officers in Northern Ireland must make a pledge when they become serving constables. That pledge is in statutory form—it is in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Every constable must declare and affirm that they will
	"faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and . . . to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof according to law."
	If that is the requirement that the office of a constable must undertake, it is shocking that the Minister found himself unable to support the amendment this afternoon.
	It is inconceivable to me and fellow Unionists that the Minister found himself unable to accept that those with a criminal conviction might well have been responsible for the murder not just of one police officer—let us remind ourselves that 302 police officers have been murdered in Northern Ireland. Does he honestly believe that it will inspire confidence and instil trust within the police service if a Minister cannot make a declaration in public of his or her support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland? Likewise, will it inspire trust and confidence that those with a string of convictions can hold important ministerial posts as Ministers with responsibility for policing or for justice, either at six-monthly intervals or acting jointly? The answer is undoubtedly no. I therefore want to press the amendment to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 130, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 14, line 24, at end insert—
	'(8) The Secretary of State shall not lay an Order under section 4(2) in relation to any matter which is specified in any of paragraphs 9 to 12, 14A and 15A and 17 of Schedule 3 unless—
	(a) a period of two years has passed since a restoration order was made under section 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 2000; and
	(b) he is satisfied that the Assembly is stable and secure.'.
	This is essentially a probing amendment. We hope that the Government will give us appropriate reassurances that the devolution of policing and justice functions to the Assembly will not occur until that body is on a secure footing.
	We hope that the Government will not misinterpret the intentions behind the amendment. The Liberal Democrat party is a devolutionist party, and our policy for a number of years has been that policing and justice functions should be devolved to the Assembly. We generally welcome part 5, but the importance of policing to society was shown clearly in the previous debate, so we must be careful about when, and under what circumstances, those functions are devolved.
	The Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended for three and a half years. In the period between the elections of 1998 and the beginning of the current suspension in October 2002, the Assembly went through a stop-start process, with various periods of suspension. Even when it was functioning, there were several crises involving the resignations of First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers.
	Given that instability, it would be wrong to devolve policing and justice functions to the Assembly. We cannot allow something as important as policing to be devolved to an Administration that does not look as though it will stand the test of time. It would be disastrous for policing to be in the hands of an Assembly Minister one week and the responsibility of a Minister in Westminster the next. Of all the areas of life for which Parliament is responsible, policing is one of the most fundamental.
	We recognise that the amendment may not be perfect, but hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance when he responds. It is relatively simple and provides that the Secretary of State could not lay an order before Parliament to devolve any policing or justice functions to the Assembly unless two conditions were fulfilled.
	The first condition is that the Assembly must have been up and running for a continuous period of two years. We chose that length of time because it was mentioned by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in the proposals for the comprehensive agreement in 2004.
	The second condition is that the Secretary of State must be
	"satisfied that the Assembly is stable and secure."
	I realise that defining "stable and secure" is difficult, but I suggest to the Committee that we will know that the state has been reached when we see it. However, it would be helpful for the Minister to describe the factors that he will take into consideration when the time comes to lay an order before Parliament to devolve policing functions to the Assembly.
	As I said, this is essentially a probing amendment. We hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on the matter.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) for moving the amendment. I share her concern, in the sense that the conditions should be right before the devolution of policing and criminal justice functions takes place but, with all due respect, her amendment applies a precondition that is not necessary. We have already put in place secure processes to ensure that, should devolution take place, it does so with the support of a range of bodies and institutions. Under the terms of section 4 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, policing and justice will not be devolved until the triple lock, as we have termed it, is in place. The first element of the lock is that the Assembly itself must vote on a cross-community basis for such devolution before it can take place, so in the first instance, the ball is firmly in the Assembly's court. On the Assembly's not being "stable", as her amendment describes it—it remains to be seen how we define that—she will doubtless recognise that the Assembly would want to devolve policing and criminal justice only on the basis of cross-community confidence in such devolution.
	The hon. Lady has witnessed today the great strength of feeling that exists in all parts of the Committee on several issues appertaining to building the confidence that will allow policing and criminal justice to be devolved. The Assembly itself must first have such confidence. Secondly, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must agree to introducing the relevant order in this House; in other words, the British Government must first take into consideration the Assembly's stability, safety and security. Finally, the House of Commons must vote in favour of the transfer order before the devolution of policing and criminal justice can become a reality.
	With due respect to the hon. Lady, the two-year period to which her amendment refers would prove arbitrary. The Assembly, the Secretary of State and the House of Commons could support such devolution as soon as this December, following the Assembly's restoration—we hope—on 24 November at the latest. Alternatively, such support could be forthcoming in one, two or five years' time. Establishing an arbitrary limit of two years would not add anything of substance to the safeguards.
	As the hon. Lady herself seemed to recognise, every lawyer in the United Kingdom would find it difficult to define the phrase "stable and secure". The use of such a phrase would not help the Secretary of State in reaching a judgment on the timing of devolution, with which section 4(2) of the 1998 Act already deals. I accept that her objectives are sound—she wants to ensure a "stable and secure" environment before such devolution takes place—but her amendment would add nothing to the Bill. I therefore hope that she will reflect on my comments and withdraw it.

Lorely Burt: I am very grateful to the Minister for his comments and I have taken on board the points that he made. Given the power and passion demonstrated on both sides of the argument this afternoon, two years could well be an optimistic assessment of the period required, but we shall see. Although we reserve the right to reintroduce it at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Department with policing and justice functions

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 25, line 34, leave out from 'passed' to end of line 38 and insert 'with cross-community support.'.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 28, line 29, leave out from 'passed' to end of line 33 and insert 'with cross-community support.'.

Lorely Burt: These are essentially probing amendments. Schedule 2 requires that a nomination to the ministerial department with policing and justice functions must be approved by a cross-community vote of the Assembly—a vote in which a majority of Unionists, a majority of nationalists and a majority of all Assembly Members approve the appointment. However, by virtue of the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there are two ways in which a cross-community vote can be achieved. The first is the 50:50:50 method, outlined in the Bill, while the second requires that the vote be approved by 40 per cent. of Unionists, 40 per cent. of nationalists and 60 per cent. overall of Assembly Members voting.
	The first method of achieving a cross-community vote was designated in the 1998 Act to approve the appointment of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. As we have seen, there were difficulties in achieving a vote on that basis. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government's sincere intention to use that type of cross-community vote when the Assembly asks that policing and justice issues be devolved to it? If so, can he explain why that version was chosen, rather than simply using the wording
	"a vote with cross-community support"
	as set out in our amendment, leaving the Assembly with the flexibility to achieve such a vote by either method?

David Hanson: As the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) mentioned, the Bill specifies that the 50:50:50 procedure should be used. We chose that method because we felt that the procedure for taking office in the case of the Minister for criminal justice and policing had in more common with that of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister than any other Department. Correspondingly, the requirement for cross-community support should be reflected in the method of election.
	I am reasonably flexible in the matter. Although 50:50:50 was our original choice, the amendment would mean that there were two methods. I have not discussed the election of a criminal justice Minister with any of the parties in Northern Ireland to take their views about what would be acceptable to the Assembly, but I am reasonably content to look into that possibility.

Mark Durkan: I encourage the Minister in that flexibility. The only effect of the provisions as they stand would be that Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party would have an absolute lock on the appointment of policing and justice Ministers. If d'Hondt is not used, only Sinn Fein and the DUP, through the office of the First and Deputy First Minister, will have control of nominations. If the Minister relies only on the parallel consent form of approval, Sinn Fein and the DUP alone will control the election to those posts—hardly the spirit of inclusion, with no side deals and prior agreements, about which we are being told.

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	I understand the Assembly's desire to choose the method it wants, or that the Government should specify both methods. We have chosen 50:50:50 because we recognise that there is a correspondence, in a general sense, with the posts of First Minister and Deputy First Minister but, as I said to the hon. Member for Solihull, I am relatively flexible about the matter.
	If it is helpful to the hon. Lady, I shall be happy to reflect on the proposal and discuss with the political parties whether they want to consider an alternative method. If she pushes the amendment to a vote, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to reject it, but if she withdraws it I shall reflect on what has been said, which will be subject to discussion on another day in another place.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments and in view of the fact that he has agreed to reflect on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Provision for transfer of functions relating to extradition etc.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 15, line 25, at end add—
	'(4A) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an order under this section unless the Assembly has passed with cross-community support a resolution praying that the relevant function be transferred to a Minister or a Northern Ireland Department.'.
	I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment and I am sure that other hon. Members will also support it. We have moved on to the very interesting and vexed issue of extradition. Of course, I say "vexed issue", because if we had had easier and more co-operative procedures between the Republic of Ireland and America in the past, we might not have had such difficulty with the ghastly, horrible measure referred to as the OTRs—on-the-runs—legislation. However, that has now been withdrawn, and we are where we are.
	Clause 21 states:
	"Her Majesty may by Order in Council"—
	again, by delegated legislation—
	"make provision amending . . . the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003; or . . . the Extradition Act 2003, for the purpose of transferring to a Minister or a Northern Ireland department, with effect from any date specified in the Order, any relevant function under the Act."
	Under that drafting, whether we like it or not, the Government may transfer extradition functions to the Assembly. The purpose of the amendment is to include the requirement that no such recommendation will be made by Order in Council
	"unless the Assembly has passed with cross-community support"—
	for once this afternoon, I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will support the amendment, because it refers to cross-community support—a resolution praying that extradition be transferred to a Department or Minister.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her argument. I want to reassure her that the Government's intention is not to transfer and devolve extradition legislation and policy to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The clause deals with the devolution of certain administrative functions in the exercise of a UK-wide extradition legislation policy.

Lady Hermon: That was as clear as mud. Perhaps when the Minister makes his contribution—

David Hanson: rose—

Lady Hermon: If the Minister wants to intervene to clarify what he has just said, it would be hugely enlightening.

David Hanson: I am sorry that the hon. Lady found my explanation as clear as mud. It was meant to be helpful to her. UK extradition policy remains a UK responsibility. Legislation remains a matter for the House. The policy will be the same in Belfast as it is in north Wales, Liverpool and elsewhere in the UK. Certain administrative functions that relate to a range of matters that are currently devolved to the Assembly may be devolved under the Bill to help the administration of that legislation, but not to change the legislation itself.

Lady Hermon: That is much clearer than the earlier little dose of mud that was delivered to the Committee. I appreciate the second, much better intervention by the Minister.
	Given that extradition policy will remain primarily or exclusively a matter for Westminster, that the United Kingdom will be treated as a whole and that no special arrangements will prevail in Northern Ireland, I wonder what negotiations have taken place and what efforts have been made by the Government to ensure the full implementation of the new extradition arrangements between America and the United Kingdom as a whole that were agreed between the Prime Minister and President Bush in March 2003.
	Following the appalling events in New York and the massive loss of life in 2001, a new arrangement was made between the British and American Governments that extradition procedures would be changed, so that a prima facie case did not have to be made either in the British courts by the Americans. Likewise, the reciprocal basis should be that the British Government need not make a prima facie case before an American court to extradite an individual.
	Since the Minister has assured us that extradition remains primarily or exclusively a matter for Parliament in London, will he enlighten us about why the Irish-American lobby in America, vast as it is, has been able to prevail on the American Government to ensure that the reciprocal part of the arrangement entered into in March 2003 has not been implemented in America, whereas the British Government have honourably implemented their part of the arrangement?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the matter. I hope that my muddy explanation helped, at least in part. As I have said to her, the Government believe that it is important to maintain a single legislative framework for international co-operation between criminal justice agencies and for extradition arrangements throughout the United Kingdom. For that reason and for the reason that I mentioned in my intervention, the provision does not transfer any legislative competence from this House to the Northern Ireland Assembly for these matters of extradition. Nor do we intend to do so in any future devolution under section 4(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	Instead, the provision is in place to allow Northern Ireland Ministers to assume direct responsibility for those administrative functions that fall directly within their control and which they are best placed to carry out. It may be helpful if I give the hon. Lady an example in relation to Scotland, where criminal justice and policing are the devolved responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Under the Extradition Act 2003, a guarantee may be needed about the future treatment in custody of an individual being extradited to the UK jurisdiction. In England and Wales, that guarantee will currently be given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on behalf of the British Government. In Scotland, because justice matters are devolved and the Scottish Parliament has taken responsibility for them, it will have to be responsible for any guarantees. At the point in the future when the Northern Ireland Assembly assumes responsibility for criminal justice and policing, there may be areas of administration where guarantees are required under legislation and a British Government Home Secretary cannot not give them because, for example, the Court Service and the Prison Service are devolved matters in Northern Ireland.
	The legislation framework is a UK framework, which I think is the point that the hon. Lady is most concerned about. That will remain paramount and that is the responsibility of this House, for the United Kingdom as a whole, under its international obligations. However, as now happens in Scotland, the administration of certain aspects of the implementation or operation of the legislation will be the responsibility of the devolved Administration. The purpose of clause 21 is to allow the administrative functions that can be transferred to be transferred, where it is appropriate to do so—at the moment, I do not know all the details of when that might be. When the functions are entitled to be transferred, the Bill will give us the power to do that, without diluting in any way, shape or form the UK responsibility for extradition and for those matters that the hon. Lady remains concerned about.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the extradition treaty, which, as she said, is not yet in force. Some of its provisions were given effect in UK legislation by the Extradition Act 2003, which came into force on 1 January 2004. For the treaty to come into effect, it needs to secure the advice and consent of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As a Government, we are urging very strongly that that be considered at the earliest opportunity. Obviously, she will understand that it is not within my gift to ensure that a separate legislature, particularly in America, can agree that matter very quickly, but it is the Government's certain intention to ensure that the treaty comes into effect. Once the United States and the United Kingdom have exchanged the instruments of ratification, the treaty will come into force. I hope that that will happen as soon as possible. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady by saying that it is the Government's intention to make sure that it does. She will know that, in this House, Select Committees take their time to examine issues. The same thing happens in the United States Senate, but I am confident that this matter will be resolved speedily and I hope that that reassures her on both counts.

Lady Hermon: I accept the Minister's first point that the Government do not intend to transfer any extradition policy to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I tabled the amendment because I wanted such clarification, so he has reassured me.
	I am rather hesitant to accept the assurance on the second point, however. It has already been pointed out that the British Government have implemented their part of the new extradition arrangements with America in that white-collar workers and executives who are being investigated by the American authorities for criminal offences of a commercial nature have been extradited to America without a prima facie case being made against them. I refer the Minister to an interesting article that was published not so long ago in a newspaper that he perhaps occasionally reads—The Guardian. On 15 December 2005, a certain Larry Elliot—he is not a constituent, so I have no personal axe to grind—wrote:
	"America's decision not to make the agreement reciprocal followed pressure from the powerful Irish-American lobby, which feared that Britain might try to extradite republican sympathisers."
	Although I accept that the Minister cannot influence an American Committee or a different jurisdiction, extradition is in the Bill and is thus a legitimate matter to raise. Individuals who committed the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland are still on the run in America, enjoying their freedom. They have never faced the courts. I urge the Minister to have a quiet, dignified word with the Home Secretary to ensure that there is no blockage at all to the reciprocal arrangements.

David Hanson: I assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General are, as they say in common parlance, on the case. They raised the issue with the United States Attorney-General at the G8 meeting in Sheffield last summer. The US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee met in November 2005 to examine the matter and plans to hold another hearing shortly. The Home Secretary raised the matter again this year with Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney-General, and we are keen to get it resolved as a matter of urgency. Whatever delays are occurring, they are not delays on the part of the British Government.

Lady Hermon: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which was much more helpful than his earlier comments. It gave me the reassurance that I needed on both points, so I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Police Service Northern Ireland 50–50 recruitment policy

'The following provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) are repealed—
	(a) subsections (5), (6) and (7) of subsection 44 (pools of applicants);
	(b) section 46 (discrimination in appointments); and
	(c) subsection (1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of section 47 (temporary provisions).'.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Peter Robinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 7—Repeal of temporary provisions about quotas, etc—
	'(1) The following provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) are repealed—
	(a) section 44(5), (6) and (7) (pools of applicants);
	(b) section 46 (discrimination in appointments); and
	(c) section 47(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) (temporary provisions).
	(2) For section 2 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2004 (2004 No. 114) substitute—
	"(2) Section 45 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which is in force on 29th March 2004 shall continue in force for the period beginning 30th March 2004 and ending 28th March 2007.".'.
	New clause 8—Equality of Opportunity—
	'(1) Section 48 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (action plans) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) for "women" substitute "Roman Catholics, women, ethnic minorities and other social groups".
	(3) In subsection (2) for "women" substitute "Roman Catholics, women, ethnic minorities and other social groups".'.

Peter Robinson: New clause 6 relates to the recruitment policy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and, especially, its discriminatory 50:50 recruitment policy. I state on behalf of all my colleagues on these Benches that we want the best of our citizens in Northern Ireland in the ranks of the PSNI, irrespective of their religious or community background. We want the composition of the PSNI to reflect our whole community, and to represent both its religious groups and the smaller ethnic groups. It adopted its present policy because of the low numbers of Roman Catholic recruits in the past years and decades to the PSNI and, before that, the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That was a direct result of the activities of the Irish Republican Army, which targeted Roman Catholics, who were less likely to apply to, and join, the RUC. Happily, many of them defied the terrorists and became members of the RUC, many of them serving in high-ranking posts with considerable bravery and distinction.
	Discrimination is wrong. It is offensive, and it is against European human rights legislation, but it is authorised in recruitment to the PSNI. Some people may describe it as positive or benign discrimination, but it is still discrimination. Hundreds of fully qualified Protestants have been denied employment on the basis of their religion simply because there has not been a corresponding uptake from the Catholic community. The 50:50 recruitment policy requires a 50 per cent. intake from the Roman Catholic community and a 50 per cent. intake not just from the Protestant community—the largest community in Northern Ireland—but from all other non-Christian and ethnic groups. On 12 October 2005, the Secretary of State revealed in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) that of the 4,413 applicants from the Protestant community who were considered suitably qualified to hold a post only 972 were appointed. That is a success rate of only 20 per cent. for applicants from a Protestant background. Of the 1,568 Roman Catholic applicants, however, 991 were successful, which is a success rate of over 60 per cent. To be successful in gaining admittance to the PSNI merit pool, non-Roman Catholic applicants were expected to score an average of 59 marks or 84 per cent., whereas Roman Catholic applicants were expected to score an average of 43 marks or 62 per cent. in the examination. It is entirely unacceptable that non-Roman Catholic applicants should be expected to score an average of 22 per cent. more than Roman Catholic applicants to gain access to a merit pool, in which Roman Catholic applicants are over three times more likely to be successful in achieving selection.
	As Roman Catholic recruits do not need to score as highly as their non-Roman Catholic counterparts, there is a valid charge that less qualified Roman Catholic recruits have been successful while than their non-Roman Catholic counterparts have not, even though they achieved a much higher score. That creates the impression in the community that police officers working in the area are not there because of their ability to do the job but simply because of their religious background. That does not help increase the community's confidence in the effectiveness of the PSNI. The Government are prepared to introduce legislation to increase the number of recruits from the Roman Catholic community, but as non-Christians and ethnic minorities are classed alongside Protestant applicants, there is clear discrimination against both Protestant applicants and individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds. At a time when race hate crimes are increasing in Northern Ireland, the Government should be doing more to encourage members of ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland to join the PSNI.
	The imbalance in the RUC was mainly the result of intimidation of Roman Catholic recruits by the IRA. Applications from the Roman Catholic community were shown to rise from 11 per cent. to 22 per cent.—double—after the first IRA ceasefire, without any anti-discriminatory legislation being put in place. It is therefore clear that it was the removal of the threat against those applicants, rather than any unfair recruitment policies, that brought about a significant increase in applications.
	The Patten commission took no heed of that fact in its report. It is inconceivable that anyone who was taking a serious look at the reasons behind the community imbalance in the RUC could have ignored the No. 1 reason why Roman Catholics were not joining. That meant that Patten was taking no account of the effect that the removal of that threat would have upon applications to the police.
	Catholics had shown that they had the opportunity to rise through the ranks of the RUC—16 per cent. at very senior officer level were Roman Catholic. People simply want more officers on the street. They do not care what religion they come from or what their background may be. They simply want the best qualified officers who are best able to do the job of tackling crime.
	Although the scheme is designed to encourage Catholic participation in the police, the operation of the scheme is alienating many young Protestants, who are told that they are of the wrong community background to get a job in policing. There is a danger that in trying to solve one problem, 50:50 recruiting will end up creating another. Every Member from Northern Ireland has had experience of this with the young people in their constituency.
	The money being used to administer such official discrimination could be better spent on front-line policing services in Northern Ireland. While direct rule Ministers constantly lecture the people of Northern Ireland about paying their own way, the Government are spending huge amounts of money on a discriminatory scheme. In recent weeks there was much publicity about the problems surrounding the provision of a new police training college in Northern Ireland. We are told that there is a lack of funding available to help build that college, and that it may be necessary to look for foreign investment to build it. At the same time we are spending millions of pounds enforcing the 50:50 recruitment scheme. The Government could help deliver world- class police training facilities, rather than enforcing discrimination in Northern Ireland.
	The former vice-chairman of the Policing Board admitted that 50:50 recruitment to the PSNI is an "aberration" and said that
	"it should be got rid of as soon as possible".
	Those comments by the Roman Catholic former vice-chairman of the Policing Board were supported not just by members of the Unionist community, but by the Alliance party, which does not support mechanisms that run contrary to human rights norms. It has recognised that the imposition of 50:50 recruitment has promoted division and led to more distrust in the police among various communities.
	It is somewhat ironic that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is supposed to be one of the police forces most trained in human rights. We are told that the PSNI is a world leader in this area. However, it would seem that human rights become important within the PSNI only when people have been successful in joining the service. The human rights of those who are unfortunate enough to be rejected on the grounds of their religion are ignored. Recruitment levels in the PSNI have ensured that the membership of the force from the Roman Catholic community is around 30 per cent. It is expected that by the time the review takes place, it will be around 40 per cent., in line with the percentage of the population that is from the Roman Catholic community.
	When he responds to the debate, will the Minister give a clear commitment that at the time of the review, if not immediately, the 50:50 recruitment policy will cease, and that the Government will recognise that they cannot continue with a policy that sets quotas for those who will get jobs in Northern Ireland, which is contrary to any human rights norm anywhere in the civilised world?

Eddie McGrady: The subject of 50:50 recruitment is very emotive, but it must be put into a particular context. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has said that the recruitment of members of the Catholic community to the then RUC was prohibited by the IRA, but that ignores the fact that before the campaign of violence by the IRA, the number of Catholics in the RUC was very small and totally disproportionate to the community structure.
	I say to those who favour the abolition of 50:50 recruitment that before the IRA's campaign of violence, there was a chill factor in the Catholic community, which believed that the RUC was a Protestant police force for a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people. The Patten investigation into how the police in Northern Ireland could be fully supported by both communities and proportionately represented by both communities led to 50:50 recruitment, but it was not the only body to make that suggestion. In its third report on 8 July 1998, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee stated:
	"As the RUC's figures show, without some radical change in the force it will take a generation to redress the religious imbalance."

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the impact of the rule imposed not by the Unionist parties or the RUC, but by the Gaelic Athletic Association, which excluded from any of its sports those who courageously joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

Eddie McGrady: I am sorry, but I did not catch the kernel of the hon. Lady's question.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking for clarification. He has referred to "a chill factor", but a huge chill factor was generated by the GAA in discriminating against those who courageously joined the RUC to follow a career in policing. Will he comment on the effect of the GAA rule?

Eddie McGrady: That was GAA rule 21, which was ignored in practice. The GAA did not and does not reflect the Catholic population—it is a sector of it.
	Irrespective of that issue, I have described the attitude of the Catholic communities in Northern Ireland. In March 2001, Catholic representation in the regular officer corps was 8.3 per cent. The current figure is more than 19 per cent. That is a good increase following the application of the 50:50 rule.
	I can understand the problem that that appears to create for the Protestant community, but I hope that they would agree that the relatively huge, if not yet proportionate, increase in the Catholic population within the new PSNI is giving a new dimension to policing right across the communities. That support from the Catholic community is increasing daily as its members gain confidence in enlisting for the new police service.

Gregory Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the changes in the composition of the police that he is describing would be occurring anyway because of the greater influx of applicants from the Roman Catholic community? We do not need this false 50:50 rule to bring about a change that is occurring naturally in the absence of an IRA campaign of intimidation against those who join.

Eddie McGrady: Between 2001 and 2003, the percentage increased from just over 8 per cent. to about 20 per cent. That was brought about primarily by the application of Patten, including the 50:50 recruitment policy, and people wishing to leave the service. How could the huge imbalance of the Catholic population in the police service have been addressed without radical action? It would take generations of natural wastage, and as a community we could not afford to wait for that to happen
	There is an insinuation that inferior candidates have qualified for the PSNI and are now on the streets as police officers. That is completely incorrect. Every new recruit who becomes a police officer in the PSNI is fully qualified in every respect. The PSNI has the highest standards in terms of the quality of recruits, whether Catholic, Protestant or neither, and that is reflected in the high success rate of its officers.

Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman nevertheless accept that some serving police officers are less qualified than those who have been refused admittance to the force?

Eddie McGrady: There is a small element of that, but it is a price worth paying for getting a first-class service that is representative of all communities.
	The figures show that 3,879 suitably qualified candidates were rejected, but only 440 to 540 were rejected because of 50:50, depending on which tranche it was. It was nothing to do with whether the applicants were Catholic or Protestant. Following over-subscription by highly qualified young people from our community, those numbers of suitably qualified candidates did not get positions because there simply were not the positions for them. A small element of that may have been discriminatory against Protestants.

William McCrea: If the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the best persons are getting the posts because they are the best persons, what is the need for 50:50?

Eddie McGrady: The 50:50 rule is there for the obvious reason that we must ensure that the Catholic population, which the hon. Gentleman must admit was grossly under-represented, is represented within a reasonable time frame. The figure has reached about 20 per cent. According to Patten, the 50:50 rule was to continue until about 30 per cent. of regular officers were from the Catholic community. At the current rate, it will take approximately four or five years—perhaps to the end of the fiscal year 2010–11—to achieve that 30 per cent. The Catholic population is much more than 30 per cent. but the 50:50 rule will be re-examined at that point.
	Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist Members have made much of the apparently huge discrimination against young Protestant men and women who apply to the PSNI. That is not happening. There is some disadvantage but it is much less than hon. Members make out. Surely even UUP and DUP Members want a police service in Northern Ireland that reflects both communities and is endorsed and fully supported by them. If we want to achieve that in a reasonable time frame, there appears to be no other way of doing so.
	There had to be a derogation from the European convention on human rights because of the marginal element of discrimination. However, I emphasise that it is a small element in the total rejections, and that can be proved. In accepting the slight element, we achieve the much greater benefit, even though some have made a sacrifice, of a police service that is fully representative of and fully supported by the communities so that, for the first time, young police officers can reside in some Catholic communities, just as they are returning to reside in some Protestant communities.

William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman understand what he is saying? He says that there is discrimination against those who should have, as a right, the ability to join the forces of law and order. He underestimates the hurt that that causes. Their religious persuasion is the only reason why they are being refused. If that was happening to his friends, he would not be happy about it.

Eddie McGrady: The point is that they are not being discriminated against because they are Protestants but because of the application of the 50:50 rule, which is trying to achieve an overall balance and equality between the communities. If we went for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, the inequality between the communities would be perpetuated. [Interruption.] I know that I am repeating myself, but if hon. Members genuinely want a police service for Northern Ireland that reflects the best of our young men and women from both communities, they should not pursue the amendments. Accepting them would mean that the whole matter would stop dead in its tracks. That is not the way forward. I ask them sincerely to accept the marginal disadvantage to a small number of people, difficult as it may be, as the price for the greater prize of a totally acceptable police force.
	I can say nothing more. Statistics can prove anything—they are everywhere—but the application of the 50:50 rule is achieving, on target, what was accepted from the Patten recommendations. It will be successful if it is allowed to continue and is supported by the DUP and the UUP. I should like to believe that that will happen. Otherwise, the position will become entrenched again and we will make no progress.

Iris Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little guilty of rewriting history. Does he accept that in the past, Roman Catholics have not been encouraged to participate in anything to do with Crown forces? Does he also accept that if Roman Catholics did apply to join the RUC, they immediately became a target for terrorist groups and even had to forgo visiting their families if they joined? This is not about deliberate discrimination against the Roman Catholic community. That community excluded itself from joining the RUC for many years.

Eddie McGrady: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but she must accept that I have never heard anyone in my community being discouraged from joining the RUC, the Army or anything else.

Iris Robinson: I have.

Eddie McGrady: It might happen, but not where I live in my community. The fact is that, whether hon. Members like it or not, the RUC was seen to be a police force that was almost in opposition to the Catholic community. I do not want to quote history or statistics, but for goodness' sake, let us remember what happened in Bombay street and Hooker street at the start of the troubles in Belfast—[Interruption.] They wiped out Catholic streets one after the other—[Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal: Order. If hon. Members wish to make comments, perhaps they could do so by making interventions rather than by calling across the Chamber.

Eddie McGrady: We can use statistics whenever we like, but we want to achieve a balanced, supported police service in Northern Ireland and take a new, vigorous step forward. We are achieving an enormous amount of change. One of the alternative proposals at the time was the total abolition of the RUC, followed by recruitment into a new police force. That was seen—correctly, in my opinion—to be unacceptable, but it was totally understandable. Instead of choosing total abolition, we decided to let the RUC continue, and to apply the 50:50 rule on the basis that it would result in an acceleration of recruitment from the Catholic community to the police service. I believe that that arrangement has served the community very well. We can make political points about it and quote statistics, but the reality is that both communities are now providing good, well-qualified young men and women who will serve our communities for years to come. When they have gone up through the ranks and achieved greater qualifications and experience, we will have a police service that is second to none, as we have now.
	I would ask hon. Members not to support the proposals from the DUP and the UUP for the total abolition of the 50:50 arrangement. If we want a new police service of the kind that I have tried to articulate, we should not support the new clause; it would represent a totally retrograde step.

Gregory Campbell: I rise to support the new clause. It is difficult to overestimate the degree of anger and outright antagonism that exists within my community towards the 50:50 arrangement. The term "50:50" is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has suggested, a misnomer, because we are actually seeing a minority of Protestants being recruited. More Catholics than Protestants are now being recruited to the police in Northern Ireland, but people use the term "50:50" as a kind of shorthand for that.
	It is difficult to overestimate the degree of anguish that exists in my community as a result of this arrangement. It is not, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) suggested, a minor aberration. Several thousand people have now received a letter thanking them for applying to join the police, and telling them that, although they are suitably qualified to be a police officer, the bottom line is that, because of the 50:50 scenario, they have been unsuccessful in this tranche of applications because they are of the wrong religion.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that thousands of applicants have received letters saying that they were unsuccessful because of the 50:50 policy. The fact is that out of 3,879 candidates who were not recruited, only 541—not thousands—failed because of the 50:50 policy.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that inaccurate information. The figures that he mentions are for one tranche. Thousands of people have applied and have got a letter indicating that they have been unsuccessful due to the 50:50 policy.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: We can trade statistics back and forth across the House, but we are dealing with human beings. I, like other right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, have had young Protestant men and women in my office, some in tears, because they have been denied the opportunity of a career simply because of the church that they go to on a Sunday. That should not be acceptable in any society. Surely, eight years on from the Belfast agreement, we should be moving to appointment and recruitment on the basis of merit alone.

Gregory Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. In all the history of Northern Ireland, in which many difficulties have been and are still being encountered today, many Roman Catholics experienced difficulties from their community in relation to being recruited to the police or, having been recruited to the police, experienced difficulties in their family or social life. There was never a time, however, when a person from the nationalist community was told, in the police or in any other branch of public service, that they would not be successful in applying on the grounds of their religion. In the history of Northern Ireland, that never happened to Roman Catholics, but it is happening currently—[Laughter.] It never happened, under any circumstances, and I defy anyone—

William McCrea: The sneers and laughs of the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) belie the fact that they have the opportunity to give us the evidence rather than pretending to the House that any Roman Catholic received a letter saying that they were denied a position in the RUC because of their religion.

Gregory Campbell: Indeed, that is the case.

Ian Paisley: We have listened to arguments from the other side, and we must be frank: the Roman Catholic population never supported young men joining the RUC. I represent a wide Roman Catholic community in North Antrim. When a young man joined the police, he was visited, and his parents were told that he was never again to be allowed to stand in his own home. I have accompanied fathers and mothers who had to travel from one end of North Antrim to the other to be allowed to meet their son in peace. What was the crime of their son? He had become a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I could name scores of other such incidents. The statement that the Roman Catholic population did not object to people joining the RUC is wrong—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that interventions must be brief. He has made his point.

Ian Paisley: All I would say is—

The Chairman: Order.

Gregory Campbell: I concur fully with the remarks of my right hon. Friend.
	At the moment, in 2006, several hundred additional applications for places in the police from both communities are required. Therefore, there is no need for the systematic exclusion of some people on the grounds of religion.
	If I wanted to, I could refer to the Grand Committee in which, two weeks ago, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) praised other parts of the public sector in Northern Ireland, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, where the Protestant community isunder-represented. But I do not demand a 50:50 recruitment policy to redress the problems in that organisation. Whatever the problems of recent years in the public sector—in the Child Support Agency, the Housing Executive or the civil service—we do not demand a 50:50 recruitment policy to deal with them.

William McCrea: If my hon. Friend did demand that a proper proportion of the Protestant population be represented in the Housing Executive, would he expect the backing of the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell)?

Gregory Campbell: I would imagine, consistency being the keynote, that members of the SDLP would rush to the ramparts to demand 50:50 recruitment—but I think that the silence would be deafening.
	I implore Members to view this issue in terms of human rights and the equity of the present position. As I have said, in 2006 there are hundreds more applications to the Police Service of Northern Ireland than are required. There are hundreds more sufficiently qualified personnel from both communities than are required. There is no need and no requirement to discriminate systematically against people on grounds of their religion, because we have suitably qualified people from both communities. We should abandon this preposterous, unacceptable, inequitable, iniquitous 50:50 regime.

Mark Durkan: A number of false claims and arguments about 50:50 recruitment have been presented on a number of occasions. One claim that has frequently been made is that it is not working, but it is. The application rate for Catholics is 35 per cent., and, contrary to another claim that is often made, there have always been enough suitably qualified candidates to fill the quota.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr.McGrady) has pointed out, the number of Catholics in the police service has already increased from 8.3 per cent. to more than 19 per cent., and later this year it will exceed 20 per cent. By 2010, according to Patten's projection, it will have reached 30 per cent. I hope that that success story encourages others to join the police service, not just Catholics but Protestants, in the knowledge that they are entering the service free from the perception that they are Protestants in a Protestant police service. The change in complexion and concept created by the 50:50 policy is there for all serving officers, not just the new Catholic officers but Protestants as well. People from all sections of the community can respect them as having been appointed on the basis of their vocational commitment to provide a policing service for the whole of that community.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the  impression created by the discriminatory 50:50 procedure? It can always be cast at Catholic recruits that they are only there because of their religion. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that is enormously demeaning for good Catholic recruits?

Mark Durkan: The fact is that everyone who is recruited to the Police Service of Northern Ireland is suitably qualified, because all candidates have to be suitably qualified.
	Hon. Members need to remember that the 50:50 recruitment policy was introduced in the context of the Patten report and a commission that looked into the question of how to create a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. Among other things, the commission might have had to consider the total disbandment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a way of creating the new beginning so that we started recruiting with a blank page.
	The decision was made that it would be wrong to move to the point of disbandment and to appoint and recruit afresh, even though some people argued for that. A decision was made to retain a large number of officers in an unrepresentative force. That is the first decision that we need to remember. If we were going to argue for open recruitment and fairness and that everything should be done on merit, we could have said, "Everyone out, it is now open recruitment; it is now open sky." For a variety of reasons, clearly that was not favoured. So 50:50 recruitment and the creation of turnover by offering severance packages to serving officers alongside the retention of thousands of serving officers who were overwhelmingly Protestant was a compromise package.
	Hon. Members should remember that under Patten, after 10 years, we do not have Catholics over-represented in the Police Service of Northern Ireland; we will still have Catholics under-represented at 30 per cent. So people need to get some sense of perspective on the real import of 50:50 recruitment.

Iris Robinson: I can take the hon. Gentleman's passion for fairness, equality and non-discrimination, but I have not heard too much noise from his party when discrimination has continued to be practised in quangos across Northern Ireland. I have not heard calls for proper representation of Protestants on those quangos.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady suggests that we are not concerned about under-representation of the Protestant community, but my party has always stood for strong anti-discrimination legislation, and we supported the creation of the Equality Commission and the Fair Employment Commission. The fair employment laws have acted to assist Protestants when they have been discriminated against and encouraged and assisted a variety of employers to improve the representation of Protestants in their work force. They have helped to improve the representation of Catholics in a series of work forces as well. For that reason, the Fair Employment Commission, the fair employment laws and the Equality Commission have always been opposed by the Democratic Unionist party. The party has opposed every measure aimed at fair employment and every counter-discrimination measure.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There has been a reasonable exchange on that point. Can we now perhaps concentrate on the recruitment policies of the police service?

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Mrs. Heal. I began by saying that a number of false claims had been made. One of those false claims was made by the hon. Member for East Derry earlier. He said that thousands of people were rejected—

Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make up the name of a constituency? My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) represents East Londonderry, not East Derry.

The First Deputy Chairman: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I do not think that it is a point of order for the Chair.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman said in his earlier remarks that thousands of people were rejected as a result of 50:50, but the figures from eight tranches of recruitment show that only 541 people were rejected as a result of 50:50 out of a total of 3,879 who were rejected. The great thing is that we had 3,879 people applying alongside the other people who were accepted. That in itself shows the change that we have achieved in the concept of policing.
	It also needs to be remembered that, as a result of the opportunities created by the Patten reforms, we have more young Protestants being recruited to the police service year on year than happened in the years before Patten and the 50:50 policy. The Minister may be able to give us the relevant figures later when he contributes to the debate, but the numbers of young Protestants recruited to the police service in the years preceding Patten and the 50:50 policy were far lower than the numbers of young Protestants now being recruited to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. People need to get that into perspective and context. The DUP opposed the Patten changes because it wanted to retain the old RUC and personnel as it was. If it had had its way the number of young Protestants who are now applying to and succeeding in joining the police would not be what it is.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman attempts to defend the indefensible. His hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) admitted that there was discrimination, describing it as marginal. Is the hon. Gentleman effectively saying that there is an acceptable level of discrimination when it comes to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is discrimination. We have also been told that the policy breaches human rights. Let us remember that a legal challenge was brought against the 50:50 policy on human rights grounds and it failed in the High Court.

Peter Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government had to get a derogation from human rights legislation to continue with this policy?

Mark Durkan: The Government succeeded in getting that derogation and it is not the only derogation that there has been. If people want to take the challenge to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, they can. We believe that it would not succeed, just as it did not succeed in the High Court in Northern Ireland. It would be to the benefit of Members to know that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has also declared that 50:50 does not breach human rights legislation. [Interruption.] I am quoting the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
	In relation to the derogation, it needs to be remembered too that the European Union in an employment directive has accepted that 50:50 is an acceptable and proper policy. It understands the context in which the policy is being applied and recognises the other choices that might have been made to achieve a more equal and representative police service. It knows what the aim and purpose are, what the context is and what the compromise choice was.

William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore disagree with his colleague the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that there is some limited discrimination?

Mark Durkan: My hon. Friend justified 50:50, as I do, knowing that it creates some painful instances. A young Protestant would-be recruit in my constituency spoke to me with great emotion and to great effect on the issue. I know that it is difficult and hard. When choosing between a 50:50 policy on top of retaining the thousands of people who were retained from the old RUC, and total disbandment followed by total recruitment on merit, it is not so perverse or cruel to opt for 50:50 as people are suggesting.
	It is certainly not leading to one-sided recruitment, or to a police service in which the Catholic community is over-represented. Under the Patten recommendations, the 50:50 approach was expected to mean that, even by 2010 or 2011, only 30 per cent. of the PSNI would be made up by members of the Catholic community. They accept that, which shows a degree of fairness, openness and realism on their part. Moreover, the fact that the Catholic community, in the context of the new beginning to policing, is able to extend acceptance and accessibility to all members of the PSNI, regardless of their community background, is a source of hope and encouragement for us all.
	We must also remember that, thanks to the work of the Policing Board, recruitment rates are even higher than recommended by Patten. More Catholics are joining the PSNI than Patten envisaged, but more Protestants are doing so too. We need to look at overall recruitment levels again, and not focus only on what can be achieved under the 50:50 policy.
	The Patten recommendations suggested that 340 new recruits, from both the Catholic and Protestant communities, would join the police every year, but the actual recruitment level is higher, having reached as many as 540 in one year. That shows that the chances of joining the police have improved for everyone, including young Protestants. Of course, the critics of 50:50 never admit that there has been a real step change in the numbers of young Protestants being recruited into the police every year.
	The quota is vital to achieving a sense of equal access and acceptability in policing. Reference has been made to what were called the historic or residual factors contributing to the long-standing Catholic under-representation in the old RUC. Whether one puts the so-called "chill factor" down to the perception in the Catholic community that the old RUC was the arm of Unionist state, or to the effects of the GAA's rule 21, it is not surprising that Catholics had little motivation to join the force. The fear factor must also be taken into consideration.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman's father served proudly in the RUC, and made a great contribution to the community.

Mark Durkan: That is true: my father served in the RUC as a district inspector. He died before I was a year old, so I have no memory of him, but many people have told me that he was a very good officer. However, I also know that he was that very rare thing in the 1950s and early 1960s—a Catholic police officer at a senior level. Indeed, it was because he was a Catholic, like his predecessor, that he became the district inspector in Armagh. Even then, a person's religion affected their suitability to hold that post. I am not sure whether that helps the hon. Gentleman to make his point, or not.
	The RUC's unrepresentative nature meant that it was badly perceived in the Catholic community and that, as a result, it was badly equipped because it was not as accepted and accessible as an effective police service needs to be. Nor was it in any way as considerate or sensitive to the needs and interests of the Catholic community as it should have been.
	If we want evidence, we need only look to the report of Sir John Stevens, who investigated allegations of a shoot-to-kill policy, poor use of intelligence and refusal to pass on intelligence to enable proper police intervention. His report says that this grossly unrepresentative police force failed to warn nationalists of threats to their lives. He wrote:
	"A further aspect of my enquiry was how the RUC dealt with threat intelligence. This included examination and analysis of RUC records to determine whether both sides of the community were dealt with in equal measure. They were not . . . Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected."
	The report also refers to collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, including the involvement of state agents in murder. Nationalists bore the brunt of that unequal, awful policy. To create confidence in the new beginning to policing, we have to take steps to ensure that nationalists have no cause to say, "Nothing has changed: this is still the same nefarious, one-sided police service that it always was." One dimension of that—

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has made a slip of the tongue—at least, I hope that he has—in suggesting that the Stevens inquiry investigated allegations of a shoot-to-kill policy. In fact, the Stalker and Sampson inquiries did so, and both found absolutely no substance for such allegations. I would like the hon. Gentleman to correct that point for the record.

Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Lady's point, in terms of my paying proper attention to my notes, but that should in no way detract from Sir John's findings on the RUC's failure to do its job and warn nationalists of threats to their lives. In the eyes of many nationalists, the RUC's unrepresentative nature is not entirely unrelated to such unresponsiveness. There are certain perceptions of, and feelings about, this issue in the Catholic community, and if we are to achieve the new beginning in policing, we must get beyond those prejudices and confine them to history. The 50:50 recruitment policy, which is only one dimension of the Patten plan, is part of that process. It is helping to change the face of policing, which is for the good of the whole community. Ever increasing numbers are relying on the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	As I have said, we need to view this policy in the context in which it came about. We need to understand that it is working and that, although some aspects of it may be proving painful, many more people are unsuccessful in their candidacy for the police service for reasons other than the 50:50 policy. No one seems to be getting too worried about the other reasons why people are not proving successful.
	Members have referred to other forms of employment, and let us be clear about the representation of the two communities in the public service work force. When I was a Minister, we identified an under-representation of Protestant workers in some lower grades of the civil service, and I took action. I acted properly to have that matter addressed, just as I acted properly to try to deal with the under-representation of Catholics in the senior civil service.
	We are taking the proper approach, which is why we need strong fair employment measures, but 50:50 has a particular purpose; it is serving that purpose and should not be messed about with, because a much bigger prize could be compromised.

Lorely Burt: I greatly appreciate how sensitive and controversial this issue is. As with many parapets, I put my head above this one with great trepidation, but it is right that I state our point of view.
	In his report on policing, Patten planned that the 50:50 recruitment process would take place over 10 years, so we expect the policy to end in 2010. We hope that the devolution of policing functions to the Assembly will have occurred by then and that it will be able to end the 50:50 process of its own volition.
	There are some important issues, however, and one group suffering from the policy has not been mentioned this afternoon—people from ethnic minorities.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Lady refers to the Patten report in support of her argument. Will she reflect on the fact that although Patten put human rights at the core of policing, the report nevertheless recommended religious discrimination in police service recruitment? How would she and her Liberal Democrat colleagues reconcile those two irreconcilable factors of the report?

Lorely Burt: Human rights are important and Patten was correct to put them at the core of the report. We have to consider the human rights not only of recruits denied a job due, as the hon. Lady pointed out, to the policy of taking an equal number of people from two religious groups, but of people on the street. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that people on the streets do not mind about the background of the policeman standing in front of them, but I have to take issue with that claim, especially in respect of people from ethnic minorities, about whom I am particularly concerned.
	The fact that ethnic minorities come within the Protestant 50 per cent. of the recruitment process has taken its toll and affected their chances of being recruited as police officers on the streets of Northern Ireland. Members of the Indian community have told my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) that they have been discouraged not only from applying to the police but from reporting hate crimes, because they do not see members of their community in the service taking on board the discrimination they feel and dealing with the crimes that are perpetrated against them. So there are lots of rights to consider, and no one is pretending that the 50:50 policy is fair. I am sure that we all look forward to the end of that policy.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) referred to some of the statistics. I understand that the Catholic community represents about 44 per cent. of the Northern Ireland community[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) suggests that the figure might be higher, but that is the figure that I have and we have been trading figures all afternoon. The point that I am trying to make is that, even if we achieve 30 per cent. by 2010, the Catholic community will still be under-represented, but there will be some sort of critical mass with which people on the streets of Northern Ireland will be a lot more comfortable.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Lady referred a moment ago to the human rights of many people in Northern Ireland. Last October, I tabled a parliamentary question about applicants who had been refused jobs in the police. The reply showed that 4,500 Protestants had applied and were regarded as suitably qualified, but that only 970 were successful. Does she therefore accept that the human rights of the 3,500 Protestants who were denied jobs in the police must be considered, as well as those of the wider community?

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I feel as though I am in the crossfire; I do not want to get caught in it, because the wider issue relates to many tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mrs. Heal. I am trying to address everyone, so I apologise for turning around.

Mark Durkan: There is no statistical complexity. I have figures showing that 541 people were rejected because of the 50:50 policy and that 3,338 people were rejected regardless of the 50:50 policy. We all know that there was a very high number of applications and that far more people applied than there were places, but Unionist Members are trying to imply that all the candidates whose applications failed were rejected because of the 50:50 policy. That is nonsense.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and to the other hon. Gentlemen for the various statistics that are going to and fro. I still do not think that they detract from my basic argument that, for a short time, the wider community in Northern Ireland must be put before the interests of a certain number of the community. Perhaps some Unionist Members would agree that, if Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board and actively engage with and support policing structures in Northern Ireland, the need for the policy would soon be ended, because people in the Catholic community would feel much more relaxed about making their applications.
	In conclusion, we recognise that the policy is far from ideal. A lot of work needs to be done. However, we must put up with it for a little longer and retain the hope that within a short period

Peter Robinson: The hon. Lady says that we must put up with the policy for a little longer. Will she tell us how long? What is the determining factor for her? What is the percentage?

Lorely Burt: As for the time that it will take, regrettably, I have not brought my crystal ball into the Chamber with me this afternoon. As for the percentage, it should be for people who have more knowledge and skill than I have to put a figure on that. Certainly, if we reach 30 per cent. by 2010, we will have achieved a great deal of what the Patten recommendations set out to achieve.

Lady Hermon: It has been a long and, at times, rather fractious debate, but, at the outset, I want to say that I endorse the remarks made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) at the beginning of this long discussion. New clauses 6 and 7 are almost identical. New clause 7 stands in my name. I am not going to go over why we should press that to a vote this afternoon, but I would like to pick up on some of the remarks that have been made, particularly those made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), to which I must admit I took grave exception.
	I declare a particular interest in that I am married to a former Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Jack Hermon. He was the Chief Constable from 1980 until 1989. During that time, we had no ceasefires at all. His deputy Chief Constable and many of his senior officers were of the Roman Catholic faith. They were enormously courageous men, and they were exclusively men, to have taken the risk that their decision to join the police servicethe RUC, as it was proudly knownbrought not only to them personally, but to their families. It was an onerous responsibility that they undertook with great enthusiasm and dedication.
	I must say that I find it utterly reprehensible that the hon. Member for Foyleperhaps Hansard will show that I misheard the latter part of his speechhinted and suggested, most unfairly and grossly inaccurately, that it may perhaps have been the unrepresentative nature of the RUC that somehow contributed to paramilitary activity by loyalists targeting Catholics.

Mark Durkan: rose

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me; I am most pleased.

Mark Durkan: What I actually said was that in the eyes of many nationalists Sir John Stevens's observation that the RUC was not warning nationalists of threats to them was not unrelated to the unrepresentative nature of the RUC.

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am most grateful. That is on the record for the second time this afternoon.

Mark Durkan: That is not what the hon. Lady said I said.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the correction, then. Hansard will, of course, shed light on all the versions by tomorrow morning.
	On 50:50 recruitment, I am staggered that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party can come to the House and defend that morally repugnant recruitment procedure for the police. I say that with some exasperation. I have brought a copy of the agreement with mean agreement that was endorsed and repeatedly quoted by the SDLP, and an agreement for which I was proud to vote in 1998.
	One of the reasons why I was proud to vote for the agreement was the assurance that it contains, in black and whiteI have not invented this. That agreement was endorsed by thousands of people in referendums both in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. On page 16, under the heading Rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity, the agreement states: The partiesI understand that the SDLP was a party to the agreement, as was the British Government; we have a Minister present this afternoon
	affirm . . . the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity.
	The agreement does not say in brackets, except recruitment to the Police Service. On the contrary, it continues, again on page 16:
	the British Government intends, as a particular priority . . . to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and political opinion.
	That is what I voted for in 1998, as did thousands of people, and the party of the hon. Member for Foyle. I was disgusted, to put it politely, when the British Governmentmy own Governmentlegislated to legalise religious discrimination in the recruitment of police officers no later than two years afterwards in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The hon. Member for Belfast, East and his colleagues rightly want to abolish section 46 of that Act through new clause 6, and, likewise, I, the hon. Member for North Down, wish to see it abolished.
	The Government have pledged to respect human rights and repeatedly tell the country, and say internationally, how much they do so. They say how much it means to them that the 1997 Labour manifesto included a pledge to make the European convention on human rights part and parcel of our domestic lawI am most grateful that they did so.
	The obnoxious 50:50 recruitment procedure, which was legislated for by a British Government after the negotiation of the Belfast agreement and its commitments, was, indeed, tested in the High Court in Belfast some years ago. A young constituent of mine, Mark Parsons, was courageous enough to challenge the legislation. It was not the case that an exemption from the European convention on human rights was negotiated. The court acknowledged that the recruitment procedure was discriminatory and cut right across article 9 of the European convention on human rights, and upheld it only because of its temporary basis. If I remember correctly, that happened three years ago.
	The hon. Member for Foyle suggested that if anyone wished to challenge the procedure in Strasbourg, it would be upheld, but that is not the case. The procedure has been in place far too long for it to be temporary. It undermines the Belfast agreement enormously. The Government stand and wring their hands repeatedly and worry about why the Unionist electorate in Northern Ireland has turned against the agreement. It is because of the salami-slicing of everything that was promised to them and, especially, 50:50 recruitment.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady has effectively confirmed that the courts in Northern Ireland decided that the 50:50 policy as per Patten was permissible under the European convention on human rights. The policy is not there in perpetuity and its nature is clear. I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying that I was misled on the derogation from the European convention on human rights. The derogation is actually from European employment law, and I mentioned that there is a European Union employment equality directive that covers 50:50.

Lady Hermon: I am reluctant to say that it is absolutely correct that while negotiations on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000and, perhaps, on the agreement itselfwere being undertaken, things were happening behind the back of the then leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the then right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Unbeknown to him, the British Government negotiated in Brussels an exemption from the European Community directives that would have made such discrimination absolutely untenable.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Lady will have heard the wise and humane words of the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). Does she accept that a police service should look like the community it serves? There are occasionsin Chicago in the 1920s, in New York in the 1940s and in the Metropolitan police service todaywhen a quota system must be used, distasteful though it might be, because otherwise the police force will not look like the community it serves. If a force does not look like that community, it cannotand seldom doescommand the respect of the community.

Lady Hermon: Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman with two facts. The Home Secretary appeared as a witness earlier this year before a Select Committee that was examining anti-Semitism. When I asked him whether he supported positive discrimination in England and Wales to make the police service more representativeI am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) would wish the police service in London and his constituency to reflect the community he represents, although I do not think that it does at presenthe said no. After the House adjourns this evening, the hon. Member for Ealing, North may wish to speak to the Home Secretary about making the police service in London, England and Wales more reflective of the community.
	The RUC came through a horrible campaign of violence and intimidation. I repeat that there were 302 dead officersnot just one here or therein a population of 1.7 million, so there is scarcely a family that is untouched. It is not surprising that the Irish Republican Army and other republican paramilitaries targeted Catholics who chose courageously to join the police service when the Gaelic Athletic Association perpetuated rule 21. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) referred to the Patten report, which recommended that all obstacles to young Catholics, including the GAA rules, should be withdrawn post-haste. The report was issued in 1999 but, if memory serves, the GAA did not withdraw rule 21 until 2005. It did not act speedily, so it is no wonder that the RUC ended up with a particular composition, which was the result, not of discrimination in the ranks, but of the undisguised intimidation and murder of Catholics who joined its forces.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the hon. Lady add to the list of obstacles confronting young Roman Catholics wishing to join the RUC the fact that the then main nationalist party in Northern Ireland refused to support the RUC or to take seats on the police authority? At best, it was ambivalent on the issue of policing.

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I pay tribute to the Social Democratic and Labour party, which at least had the strength of conviction to serve on the Policing Board, albeit belatedly, where it made a valuable contribution. I am grateful that it did so.
	I urge the Minister to withdraw an obnoxious recruitment procedure. I have outlined why the hon. Member for Belfast, East, his colleagues and Ithe lone ranger for the Ulster Unionist partyoppose the 50:50 recruitment procedure.

Jim Devine: The Scottish Parliament introduced a 50:50 policy on women MSPs. It was much criticised and regarded as regressive by some, but it has been an amazing success that has made a great contribution to Scottish society. Is it not worth having a 50:50 policy in Northern Ireland?

Lady Hermon: I sigh with exasperation but, personally, I find any form of discrimination morally reprehensible. I shall not endorse the policy. My party, of all parties, needs to recruit more women to its ranks so that they can be elected, but discrimination in any shape or form is abhorrent and repugnant.
	Finally, if we reach the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle they will appear rather hollow, given his mention of the support givendisgracefully, in my viewby the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to 50:50 recruitment. If any human rightsorganisation can sustain legalised religious discrimination, that undermines the confidence, particularly of the Unionist and Protestant community, in anything that it undertakes. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to move a new clause later to increase the powers of the Human Rights Commission, when he has just endorsed religious discrimination. I cannot countenance that.

Ian Paisley: This has been an important debate, because it has raised issues that needed to be raised and discussed, and still need to be discussed. My party will press the motion.
	The Royal Ulster Constabulary, of all people, has been maligned in the debate. I rise because someone must stand up and make it clear that we salute the gallantry, the heroism and the sacrifice of the noble men of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We also salute their wives and families, because when their husbands went out in the morning, they did not know whether they would return. Sometimes they returned crucified, with part of their limbs cut off by evil men. The time has come for the House to salute the gallantry of members of the RUC and tell the country that we pay them the tribute that needs to be paid to them.
	I have listened to the SDLP Members and to their defence of certain things that have been said, but I do not think the people of Northern Ireland will take as infallible what a police officer who was sent over from the Metropolitan police had to say about matters. One has only to look at what happened at that time in Northern Ireland and at some of the exposures that came afterwards to know that he was not a reliable witness.
	Today, as we look back, we need to realise that there is no justification for religious discrimination by anyone. It is all very well for SDLP Members to say in the House, It's only a little thing, and you can forget about it. If that attitude had been taken when they raised matters that were sometimes little things, they would not have had the support of Protestant people who believed that there should not be religious discrimination of any kind.
	Ulster stands at a crossroads. The time has come when the people of Ulster should have the opportunity to have full civil and religious liberty for all menall men equal under the law, all men equally subject to the law. The sooner we achieve that, the better for us all. We surely should be able to unite on that subject. I trust that tonight, when the debate is finished and we push ahead with other matters, we will keep in mind the gallantry and the heroism of those who fought and died to give us the freedom to stand here and say what we can say in a free House and a free Parliament.

Sammy Wilson: This has been a bizarre afternoon. On the previous set of amendments, SDLP Members defended the notion of a Minister for policing and justice who would not give a pledge to support the police. Now the same party is defending overt discrimination against those who apply to join the police. Once again, we have heard the same threadbare arguments. We have been told that 50:50 recruitment is necessary because of the discrimination of the past, despite the fact that there was never a religious bar on people joining the RUC. Indeed, a percentage of places was held over for members of the Catholic community to join the RUC.
	I understand why many people did not join the RUC. In the 1970s, I served as a part-time RUC member, and I used to walk the streets with two Catholic RUC members. The family of one of them totally supported his position and his wish to be a policeman, while the other had not seen his family since joining the policehe could not go back, and he told me that he would not go back.

Jim Devine: The hon. Gentleman said that places were set aside for the Catholic community. Was that not positive discrimination?

Sammy Wilson: No, it was not positive discrimination, because it was not a requirement that a certain number of recruits should come from one section of the community or the other. There was no system to discriminate against recruits, and the arrangement was voluntary.

Jim Devine: At that time, what percentage of RUC members came from the Catholic community?

Sammy Wilson: That was the start of the troubles, when the percentage of RUC members who were Roman Catholics was in the upper teens. A systematic programme was conducted against those members, many of whom could not go home to their familiesmany of their families did not want them to go homewhich led to a gradual reduction in the number of Catholics in the service. The percentage of Catholics decreased because of the actions of the IRA, which is not a reason to discriminate against Protestants or anyone else who wants to join the police now, but it is one of the justifications used by SDLP Members.

Jim Devine: As SDLP Members have said, it is a historical problem that needs to be sorted.

Sammy Wilson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here for the speeches by SDLP Members who said that something within the RUC put people off joining, which was not the case. Now we have instituted an arrangement that discriminates against people from the Protestant community.

William McCrea: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, before 1973, the percentage of Roman Catholics in the Royal Ulster Constabulary was in the high teens? When the IRA campaign took hold, that percentage decreased not because of anything within the RUC, but because of intimidation, murder and threats within the Roman Catholic community.

Sammy Wilson: My hon. Friend's point reflects my experience. The officer I mentioned found that his own family did not want him to return home because of threats and intimidation.
	The second argument that has been made concerns the RUC's record. Much has been made of the Stevens inquiry finding on people not being warned that they were on death lists or that terrorist action was going to be taken against them. There are recorded instances of intelligence having been available when someone was under threat and difficult decisions having been made.
	That does not apply only to the RUC. All police services that gather intelligence have to make hard decisions at times when a source might be compromised and officers cannot give the warnings that they might have wanted to give. That has placed many officers in difficult positions. However, it is completely wrong to suggest that there was any systematic attempt within the police to withhold information. I often speak to officers who had to make difficult decisions that they have had to live with. That is not a justification for the blackening of the police that has been attempted this afternoon.

Stephen Pound: The overwhelming majority of Members would endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the Police Service of Northern Irelandthe Royal Ulster Constabulary. At the time of the Patten commission in 1998, fewer than 6 per cent. of the policeI think that it was 5.3 per cent.were Roman Catholic. Now, the figure is nearly 17 per cent. Surely that proves that positive discrimination was necessary, unpalatable though it may be.

Sammy Wilson: I have already explained why the percentage went down over the period of the troubles. It would have increased anyhow as the troubles diminished.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) argued that the RUC had to be done away with because, in some cases, warnings were not given. That denigrates officers who did an excellent job over many years of terrorist activity and had to make very difficult decisions that that they will have to live with for a long time. He also suggested that we could have done away with the RUC entirely and started with a clean sheet, and that because we did not do that, 50:50 is justified. Anyone who believes that one day we can have a police service and the next day we can have no police service, and yet still have efficient policing, is living in an Alice in Wonderland world.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is referring to my comments about the choices facing the Patten commission, to which several recommendations, proposals and submissions were made by various parties. We did not advocate disbandment to create a new beginning for policing, but that was one of the options canvassed. Patten decided against that. As part of the compromise, a large number of existing officers were retained for the new police service and new recruits were to be appointed on a 50:50 basis.

Sammy Wilson: That was a nonsensical idea. We are already reaping some of the consequences of getting rid of far too many experienced officers in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman's party supported a derogation from 50:50 in order to get more detectives recruited from the mainland because of the skills shortage caused by the limited application of the Patten recommendation.

Mark Durkan: That reinforces what I said earlierthat the DUP opposed the high turnover ratio that the Patten plan created. If the DUP had had its way, fewer Protestants and fewer Catholics would have been recruited to the police service.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman's party confirmed our worst fears about the Patten proposals, in that that their desire to please republicanslet us face it; that was their purposemeant getting rid of experienced officers, thus leading to skills shortages, which had to be made up by recruiting officers from the mainland. No officer from England or Scotland would have been prepared to have their job decided on the basis of their religion, so the SDLP had to accept that 50:50 would not apply to recruiting people from England or Scotland because they would not have taken the insult of having their religion examined before they were found to be qualified for a job. However, paper-thin arguments continue to be made in favour of 50:50 discrimination.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman needs to realise the difference between 50:50 recruitment of fresh new police officers for training and seeking existing trained detectives from other forces.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman can make such fine distinctions, but constables could not be recruited without applying the 50:50 rule in Northern Ireland yet they could when they came from the mainland.
	I want to consider some of the consequences. As my   hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, the 50:50 rule has led to discrimination against more than 3,000 people in the Protestant community. The hon. Member for Foyle can shake his head, but people who receive a letter stating that they have not been appointed on the basis of their religious background have already got into the merit pool. They have reached the required standard and qualified. They could be appointed as police officers but they are not. Those 3,000 people got through the process and received a letter telling them that they were of the wrong religion and that there were already too many Protestants in the pool, although they had qualified and been through the test. That is unfair. I do not care how anybody tries to describe it, whether as a temporary arrangement or something that helps to increase the percentage of Catholics in the police service.

Jim Devine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sammy Wilson: No, we are approaching the end of the debate.
	The 50:50 recruitment rule is expensive. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) can confirm that, because we have held many discussions about the matter on the Policing Board. The recruitment cost, not including training costs, of every police officer in Northern Ireland is 12,500 because of the contortions that have to be undergone under the 50:50 rule. It is not only unfair but expensive.
	The rule is also inefficient because it applies not only to police officers but to civilian staff. In some cases, the PSNI advertised and received replies from qualified people who could do the jobs but, because no Catholics applied, no one was appointed. The most recent example was in forensics. Forensic experts were required to help with current investigations. No Catholics applied, although plenty of otherseveryone who is not a Catholic counts as otherswho were qualified did. No one was appointed because we could not get the balance. We end up without the job being done rather than making an appointment that does not reflect the 50:50 requirement.
	The rule is unfair, expensive and inefficient. It should not be tolerated and it is disgraceful that any party that claims to stand for human rights and fairness supports it. The final defence of the arrangement presented by the hon. Member for Foyle was that this could not be discrimination because his party was against discrimination. That is what the argument falls back on. Just because his party says it is against discrimination, when discrimination is practised in its name and with its support, it is no longer discrimination.

Shaun Woodward: This has been an important debate that has raised several issues. While I hope to persuade hon. Members not to press the new clause to a vote, I also wish to put on record the fact that I respect the very different views that have been expressed across the House, even though I disagree with some of them.
	I also put it on record that I share the emotions, the commitment and the rational argument advanced by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)? Our discussions this afternoon should do nothing to besmirch the courage, the gallantry or the reputation of former members of the RUC, or, for some, the enormous sacrifice that they and their families made. I do not wish to do anything other than echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about that.
	Let us be absolutely clear about this. The 50:50 policy is an exceptional policy and a temporary measure to enable the PSNI to be representative of its community and to do that in a reasonable time frame, with the target of increasing its Catholic composition to 30 per cent., we hope by 201011. The policy is temporary and exceptional. I remind hon. Members of the comments in the Patten report, whether they agree or disagree with its conclusions. It stated:
	the main problem facing policing in Northern Ireland has been the political divide between the Protestants/Unionists and Catholics/Nationalists and the identification of the police with unionism and the British state in the minds of many nationalists.
	The report went on to say:
	This has undoubtedly had some effect on the rate of applications to join the police from the Catholic/Nationalist community, as has the active discouragement, sometimes including intimidation, which many potential recruits from that community have experienced.
	Why did that matter? It mattered because, putting aside the conclusions, Patten said:
	community policing is impossible if the composition of the police service bears little relationship to the composition of the community as a whole.
	I also agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound). Patten said:
	The point is that communities as a whole should see themselves as having a stake in the police service as a whole. If all communities see the police as their police, there will be a better, cooperative partnership between community and police, and therefore more effective policing.
	It was in that context that Patten said:
	It is the imbalance between the number of Catholics/Nationalists and Protestants/Unionists which is the most striking problem in the composition of the RUC.
	He rightly tried to reconcile the issue of human rights with his proposals for 50:50 recruitment.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Shaun Woodward: I am afraid that, as the hon. Gentleman and other members of his party have left me very little time to respond to the debate, I cannot take his intervention.
	Patten also said:
	The proposals that are made on composition of the police service are an essential part of meeting the five tests
	that is, the human rights tests. For him, those human rights tests involved doing something to change the fundamental composition of the police force, because only a tiny fraction of the RUC was drawn from the Catholic community. Fewer than 8.3 per cent. were from that community in 1998. Today, that figure stands at nearly 20 per cent., with some 57,000 applications having been received to join the PSNI.
	I recognise the arguments that have been put forward today about principle, and that the tools being used to achieve this end might not be the ones that we would use if we were in an ideal position. The fact of the matter remains that we did not start from an ideal position but from one in which only a tiny fraction of a community was represented in the police force. To change that imbalance, we put forward these proposals.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to a range of statistics. It is important that we are not selective, so I want to put on record the basic statistics. In the first eight competitions, more than 28,000 applications from non-Catholics were received, of which 541 will have been rejected directly as a result of the temporary provisions. In other words, less than 2 per cent. of all non-Catholic applicants will have been rejected as a direct result of the 50:50 provisions. The latest campaign has seen the highest number of applications yet for the PSNI, with 7,691 applicants competing. This is the critical point, and the reason why people are being rejectednearly 8,000 applicants are chasing fewer than 500 places. That is the real reason why so many qualified candidates from both community backgrounds are unsuccessful.
	The Government are keenly aware of how the temporary 50:50 measures also impact on ethnic minority recruitment, and we have noted the Chief Constable's concerns. As the Patten report makes clear, however, the imbalance between the numbers of Catholics and Protestants was the most striking problem in the composition of the police, above issues such as gender, ethnic minority and gay and lesbian representation, which have also been raised, though the commission rightly recognised their importance. Ethnic minorities make up 0.27 per cent. of PSNI officers. Of course, that should be considered in the context of a community in which ethnic minorities, including Travellers, comprise less than 0.5 per cent. of workers.
	We firmly believe that these temporary measures are justified to correct an acute historical imbalance in the composition of the PSNI. Let me assure all Members, however, that the measures will not stay in place a day longer than is necessary. We are firmly committed to achieving a progressive increase in the Catholic representation in the police servicefor us, the figure should be 30 per cent. by 201011. We are on course to achieve that, and it is absolutely right to be able to do so. In less than five years, under 50:50 temporary provisions, Catholic composition has increased from 8.3 per cent. to nearly 20 per cent., and it is rising.
	In the same period, female composition has also risen from 13 per cent. to over 20 per cent. We should be cautious about making comparisons between gender and religious background, as the issues are not the same. That was acknowledged by Patten, who recognised the need to increase the number of women in the police service but focused on the more important need of addressing the imbalance of community background in order to have effective policing. Critically, he recognised that the provisions should be temporary, lasting until the target had been reached.
	Hon. Members will be aware that these are exceptional measures that are reviewed triennially and will expire unless specifically renewed by an order. The current order allows for their continuation until 28 March 2007, at which time Members will have a further opportunity, both in this House and another place, for detailed scrutiny of these temporary provisions.
	Having carefully considered the amendments, and in light of the review this summer, the consultation that will take place with all the parties and the debates that will take place in this and another place later this year and early next year, before March, I ask Members to withdraw them. I respect their arguments, and we might disagree, but ultimately, achieving a balance of 30 per cent. is not only good for members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland but right for the communities of Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: I shall not attempt, in the 30 seconds that remain, to wind up such a wide-ranging debate. I shall simply say that the Minister has been careless with statistics. The figures that he produced were inaccurate. Before the introduction of the 50:50 policy, the numbers had already increased from nearly 9 per cent. to well into double figures. The 50:50 policy therefore cannot take the credit for the increase.
	It being Six o'clock, The First Deputy Chairman, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to order [19 April].
	The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Sylvia Heal: Order. Will the Serjeant at Arms please investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

The Committee having divided: Ayes 103, Noes 282.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Bill (Clauses 1 to 7, 10 to 12, 19 to 22 and Schedule 2, and any new clauses and schedules other than those related to Parts 2 or 4) reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Local Government (Boundaries) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.[Mr. Watson.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 26 April, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions).

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Ordered,
	That, in respect of the Northern Ireland Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time[Mr. Watson.]

AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Watson.]

Martin Caton: What I should like to do in this Adjournment debate is, first and foremost, to celebrate the quality of landscape and environment in the Gower peninsular, the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty in Britain and the area that I have the privilege to represent in this House. I also want to celebrate the beauty and diversity of the 40 or so other AONBs in England and Wales. I shall begin by focusing a little on the history of our AONBs, and then I shall look to the future.
	Our story goes back to the period immediately after the second world war, and to the establishment of the Hobhouse committee that looked at the need to protect and enhance our most valuable landscapes and habitats. Hobhouse reported in 1947, and that report led to the legislation that became the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which established both national parks and AONBs. Even then, national parks and AONBs were accepted as being equal in quality and value to the nation, but they were deliberately treated quite differently. The decision to treat them differently came directly from the Hobhouse report, which stated:
	There are many areas of fine country in England and Wales, which are not included in our selection of National Parks, but yet possess outstanding landscape beauty, are often of great scientific interest and, in many cases, include important holiday areas. While, in the main, they do not call for the degree of positive management required in National Parks . . . their contribution to the wider enjoyment of the countryside is so important that special measures should be taken to preserve their natural beauty and interest. We recommend . . . that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning should designate areas of high landscape quality, scientific interest and recreational value as Conservation Areas.
	Under the terms of section 87 of the 1949 Act, those conservation areas became AONBs. Even then, Hobhouse's belief that these areas required no positive management was mistaken, as became clearer over the following decades. Indeed, that is especially clear if one compares the history of the national parks with that of the AONBs. In practice the 1949 Act did little more than create the designation area of outstanding natural beauty and make consequential provision for land use planning arrangements. Indeed, considering the flimsiness of their foundation, the most remarkable feature of our AONBs between 1956, when Gower was designated, and the end of the millennium was how much had been achieved in resisting the worst excesses of exploitation and neglect, without proactive management and earmarked resources. That said, the history of countryside protection during that period was very patchy.
	After a lot of lobbying, the chairman of the National Parks Commission, Mr. Strang, and his secretary, Mr.   Abrahams, signed Gower's designation order on 9 May 195650 years ago next month. We in Gower intend to celebrate that anniversary over the rest of the year.
	So what is so special about Gower that led to it earning this early recognition, before other candidate regions? It is very special in many ways. Even though it covers only 72 square miles, its 23 miles of magnificent coastline are now designated as heritage coast. Geological variety has given us a matching variety in landscape. On the south coast, we have marvellous carboniferous limestone scenery stretching between Worms Head and Oxwich bay. By way of contrast, in the north we have salt marshes, dune systems and the Loughor estuary. In between, inland Gower is notable for its attractive wooded valleys and its large areas of common, dominated by sandstone heath ridges and, most especially, the soaring sweep of Cefn Bryn.
	The Gower peninsula AONB includes 25 sites of special scientific interest, five candidate special areas of conservation, three national nature reserves, one special protection area, one Ramsar site, three local nature reserves, 23 Wildlife Trust reserves and 67 ancient woodland sites. It is also home to 83 scheduled ancient monuments and sites. Some 30 per cent. of the AONB is designated as historic landscape, and there are more than 100 listed buildings there. We have some 240 miles of public rights of way. All our beachesthey are beautiful beachespassed the bathing water regulations mandatory and guideline standards. Last year, four Gower beaches got blue flags, and a further six got green coast awards.
	We are also fortunate in that, in the years since the 1930s, some of the most valuable landscape areas in Gower have been acquired by the National Trust. Notable flora and fauna species on the coast include chough, peregrine and the rare yellow whitlow grass, which, I think, is still unique to Gower. The common land in the AONB also provides a valuable habitat for rare plants and animals, including southern damselfly, nightjar, black bog ant, marsh fritillary and the palmate newt. Growing on the commons we also find various heather species, royal fern, bristle bent grass, a range of mosses, bilberry, deer grass and three-lobed crowfoot.
	During Tuesday's debate on the Commons Bill the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who will respond to this debate, highlighted the contribution that our commons make to national biodiversity. Gower is, literally, proof of that statement. Its commons are wildlife treasure chests, simply because they have not been agriculturally improved or subjected to regular pesticide or fertiliser treatment. However, they have come under various pressures in recent years, with different problems affecting different commons, such as increased use of artificial nutrients, over-grazing on some places and under-grazing on more, and land being torn up by motorcycle scramblers and other off-road vehicles. The Gower commons initiative has improved the situation enormously over the past five years, especially through the strategic placing of cattle grids to achieve better stock management.
	So that is a brief picture of Gower in facts and figures, and although such a run-down can be pretty impressive in its own way, it does not really capture the unique quality of Gower, nor its clear and historical identity as a separate and special place. It is right on the doorstep of the old industrial city of Swansea, yet city residents and visitors alike almost all comment on the feelings of isolation and remoteness that they experience in Gower, despite the fact that they are rarely more than 20 miles from the city centre.
	Although close proximity to Swansea creates many problems and pressures for Gower, in conservation, environmental and socio-economic terms, the contrast with its urban neighbour is part of what makes Gower special. From the point of view both of residents of Swansea and Gower and of visitors, the relationship between rural Gower and urban Swansea can be complementary: Swansea provides an ever widening range of cultural, educational and leisure opportunities alongside Gower's contribution of rare natural beauty, fantastic beaches and splendid walks.
	Over the decade since Gower's birthday, in a process that started slowly, about 40 AONBs have secured designation, ranging from the Solway coast to the north Wessex downs, from the Norfolk coast to the Cotswolds and from the Cornish coast to the Clwydian rangetheir beauty matched only by their diversity. Over most of the past half-century, however, our AONBs have struggled under the inadequacies of the original legislation, which failed to provide them with management and financial resources similar to those for national parks. The unfairness and impracticality of that situation became more and more apparent as the decades went by and it became clearer and clearer that AONBs were not just the little sisters of national parks; indeed, the Cotswolds AONB is larger than any national park and in terms of tourist numbers, the Chilterns AONB receives more visitors than most national parks.
	The financial and legislative weakness of the AONB system came into proper focus only in the last few years of the 20th century, with the Countryside Commission undertaking a fuller review of the working of AONBs, the establishment of an England and Wales AONB association and the distillation of some clear reform objectives. Thankfully, at roughly the same time, a legislative hook came alongthe Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. Inside and outside Parliament, we campaigned for amendments to require statutory management plans for our AONBs and the Government accepted the principle and introduced the necessary changes, which is hugely to their credit and the most important change for AONBs in their 50-year history.
	In recent years, we have seen a sea change in the status and professionalism of the management of our AONBs, which can and must be built upon. We have seen the Chilterns and Cotswold AONBs set up conservation boards under the powers provided to them in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, invaluable for AONBs that fall within a number of local authorities. The powers and responsibilities in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act have been backed up with financial resourcesuntil now at leastthrough the Countryside Agency in England, superseded by Natural England, and the Countryside Council for Wales in my part of the world. The main funding vehicle in Wales that has benefited Gower is the sustainable development fund, which is being used to support 22 valuable green projects in the Gower AONB.
	The word partnership has perhaps become too much a part of our conversations in this place and has been frequently used in the jargon of politics in recent years. But sometimes there are theories at the bottom of our jargon, and partnership really is the key to success for AONBs. That means, first and foremost, partnership at local level, involving local authorities and the local people who live in and around the AONB, encouraging them to maintain a sense of involvement and ownership, acknowledging that the aims of conservation and sustainability do not have to be in conflict with the needs of agricultural production or other forms of economic development, including tourism. That is not only possible but practical, as long as everyone recognises the exceptional quality of the landscape in which they work, although it also requires conservationists and environmentalists to acknowledge that sustainability does not mean petrification.
	We also need an effective working partnership between the different AONBs in the country, with best practice actively disseminated and ideas readily exchanged. That is already happening through the excellent functioning of the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which goes from strength to strength, and which I am delighted to report is holding its annual conference in Swansea this year, so that it can take a leading role in celebrating the golden anniversary of Gower's designation. My hon. Friend the Minister has been invited and I hope that he and Carwyn Jones, his opposite number in the National Assembly, will be able to attend and can take the opportunity to go to Gower and enjoy its marvels.
	There must be partnership between the AONBs, the responsible local authorities and the legislature and the Government, whether the National Assembly for Wales or Westminster and Whitehall for the UK. The all-party group on AONBs, which I chair in the House, plays asmall part in aiding communication between parliamentarians, the AONBs and Ministers.
	Most people involved with AONBs believe the future is far brighter than it appeared even a few years ago, but of course that does not mean that we should take anything for granted or become complacent. That was brought home to me just last year when the Welsh Assembly Government, in a consultation exercise about local government powers, proposed that the requirement to produce management plans for AONBs should be removed, just five years after the CROW Act had introduced that vital measure. Thankfully, they were convinced that that would have been a very big step in the wrong direction.
	Even now, the people who care about our AONBs still have their worries about future financing, when local authority budgets are squeezed; about the fact that AONBs are funded on an annual basis, when it would be more efficient to fund them on a three-year programme; about how AONB interests will be picked up in the new regional spatial planning strategies in England and the unitary development plans in Wales; and, perhaps most importantly, about the fragility of some agricultural sectors, recognising the importance for biodiversity of appropriate stocking levels, especially on the uplands. However, we can deal with all those things by working together under the new legislation.
	As we said on the AONB association's display board that we put up in the Upper Waiting Hall when we were campaigning for AONB provisions in the CROW Bill,
	It's a new dawn for AONBs.
	Unfortunately, the photograph used to show the sun rising, which I did not see until the day, was of Worms Head at Rhossili in my constituencyof course, Rhossili is on the west coast of Britain and the photograph was actually of the sunset. That was an unfortunate mistake, but I was sure then, and am even more sure now, that that was not necessarily a bad omen.
	I should like to finish, still on beautiful Rhossili, by quoting from the man sometimes described as the Gower poet, Vernon Watkins, the close friend of Dylan Thomas, whom Dylan believed was the better poet. It is an extract from the poem simply called Rhossili, which conveys the awe and the inspiration that fine landscape and the natural environment can evoke in us:
	  Pushed out from the rocks, pushed far by old thought, long into night, under starlight,
	  At last, tired from my coastal labouring, I come to you, sleepless Rhossili.
	  I have cut through the mirror-bright sea in the long, slender boat with two paddles,
	  And ground in the sand. Dawn breaks. I stare, amazed, at the marvel.
	  Coiled sand, gold mountains, grass-tufted dunes, unending, rising, descending,
	  And the cat-spotted, wind-crafty tide, spitting serpent-white tongues drawn slack,
	  Soon reaching the barnacled wreck, quivering, recoiling, bending
	  Stung eyes to the rasping whisper of gongs, of songs that will not run back.
	  Rhossili! Spindle of the moon! Turning-place of winds, end of Earth, and of Gower!
	It is that awe, that inspiration at the sight of outstanding natural beauty, that we celebrate above all at this year's anniversary in Gower.

Jim Knight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing this debate on the good work done in our areas of outstanding natural beauty. He is a tireless champion of that work. He has spoken with such eloquence, and my Department certainly appreciates his work as the chairman of the all-party group. Clearly, like me, he is influenced in valuing our AONBs by the beautiful example that he has in his constituency. My constituency, based deep in Dorset in the south-westa region blessed with numerous and varied outstanding landscapeshas persuaded me of the importance of properly conserving and managing them and of the important role that they play in society and the benefits that they bring.
	I recall my holiday on the Gower peninsula with my family some 10 years or so ago. We spent a lovely week camping there, and we enjoyed the very special landscape, the magnificent coastline and the wonderful beaches that my hon. Friend has talked about. I like to think that I have the nicest constituency in the country, but perhaps I had better define that country as England and leave my hon. Friend to claim the same for Wales.
	I also note my hon. Friend's interest in the Commons Bill. There may still be an opportunity for him to serve on the Committee that considers that Bill if he is enthusiastic to do so, and I am sure that he could let the appropriate people know of that enthusiasm if he is keen.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the National Association for AONBs for inviting me to the celebrations in July to mark the 50th anniversary of the Gower as our first area of outstanding natural beauty. I certainly intend to accept that invitation and I look forward to renewing my acquaintance with Gower. If I am given a choice between a conference and enjoying the landscape, I will certainly opt for the landscape.
	My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that my responsibilities extend only to those areas of outstanding natural beauty on the English side of the border and so I hope that he will forgive me if I concentrate on the English areas of outstanding natural beauty. I fully recognise that most of the issues of concern are similar in both England and Wales.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition of the high regard in which the Government hold AONBs, as well as our other designated landscapes, and of the increased funding that we have been able to provide for AONBs. Since 2000, funding for them from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has increased steadily, via the Countryside Agency, and last year amounted to more than 9 million. Additionally, and in keeping with a manifesto commitment, I introduced a sustainable development fund for AONBs last year amounting to 3.5 million. That equates to approximately 100,000 for each of the English AONBs. The fund aims to meet the purpose of AONBs by encouraging individuals, community groups and businesses to co-operate together to develop practical and sustainable solutions to the management of their activities. It is administered with a light touch by the Countryside Agency and I am sure that it will continue to be administered in that way by Natural England, its successor.
	I am glad that AONB management plans, statutorily introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as my hon. Friend reminded us, are providing a real focus for action and helping to facilitate co-operative working. I am pleased that I have avoided the use of the word partnership, to please my hon. Friend. The preparation of those plans has demonstrated the importance of a whole range of partners coming together to contribute to the vision and the practical management of each AONB. In delivering the goals that the management plans have set, it is equally important to move forward with that co-operation.
	In the new delivery landscape, it will be important for our AONBs to work even more closely with Natural England than they have been used to doing with the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Rural Development Service. In the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, we took powers to enable the Department for Enivronment, Food and Rural Affairs, in suitable circumstances, to delegate delivery functions to AONBs, whether they are managed by joint committees or conservation boards. We also need to see AONBs aligning their actions with the priorities that are set out in the various regional strategies and frameworks, some of which my hon. Friend mentioned.
	As further evidence of the Government's commitment to our finest landscapes, I would point to the guidance that we produced a year ago drawing the attention of a wide variety of public bodies to their statutory duty to have regard to the purposes of AONBs and national parks when undertaking their own functions. I believe that that guidance has been generally well received. It has pulled requirements from a number of legislative sources into a single publication that has raised awareness of protected landscape issues and responsibilities to such landscapes. Previously, in some cases, that information was not particularly well known. Natural England will monitor how that works and will report on any significant problems.
	I would also like to remind the House that the first two AONB conservation boardsfor the Chilterns and the Cotswoldswere established in December 2004 under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. They can provide for a more joined-up approach for large AONBs that cross a number of local authority boundaries. Early evidence suggests that the conservation boards have hit the ground running and are demonstrating the benefits of their new status.
	Landscape is always changing through a mixture of human and natural intervention. The pressures on landscape today are many and varied. They include the effects of climate change, social and economic developments, changes in farming and land management techniques, and people's increased mobility. My hon. Friend referred to some of the current and future concerns of AONBs. However, I can assure him that I remain committed to our finest landscapes and take every opportunity to defend them and expound their virtues when they are threatened.
	The UK has recently signed the Council of Europe's European landscape convention, which aims to promote the protection, management and planning of all landscaperural, urban and peri-urban. I hope that we will soon be able to ratify it. We do not think that that will require immediate changes to policy or legislation because the UK already has such a good record in the area. However, we will use the convention to help to guide future policy in the normal course of review, which can only help to raise the profile of landscape to the same level as other considerations in many areas of our work.
	I said right at the start that I was already familiar with the benefits provided by our finest landscapes for the past 50 years. They not only possess intrinsic beauty in many varied ways, but provide the facility for many forms of recreation, such as simple relaxation and reflection, walking and ridingI remember getting very wet riding in the Gower peninsula on that holiday with my familygetting close to nature, or undertaking more vigorous pursuits. Those, in turn, provide unseen mental and physical health benefits. There are obvious physical health benefits of going to the gym, but the mental health benefits of combining that with getting outdoors among the trees and wildlife are much greater. That is why many thousands of visitors come to the areas each year and stimulate the local and national economies. Of course, our landscapes have been the source of inspiration for artists, poetswe just heard a wonderfully recited poemand authors, both past and present. They also provide a living for those who work on the land.
	I pay tribute to all those who work hard to maintain and champion the areas. I pay particular tribute to the work of the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials consult that excellent organisation frequently and have a fine relationship with its representativeslong may that continue. I will continue to champion AONBs and know that my hon. Friend will continue to do so. I look forward to joining in the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the first area of outstanding natural beauty designation later this year.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Seven o'clock.